These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Eli Apol
Definitely a nullsec alt
#1061 - 2015-03-10 20:18:47 UTC
Sigras wrote:
Really this whole thread is trying to answer one question, what is "effective military control"?

If I have 20 battleships and 10 guardians on grid and you have 30 vagabonds and 10 scimitars on grid who has "effective military control"? Sure I cant catch you, but you cannot come near my fleet or you die.

Does a super kite-y fleet with the ability to run away exert military control?

The biggest problem is that the answer to that question IS going to effect the fleet meta out in 0.0 and there is no getting around that.

I think that's also why there shouldn't be a hard limit to X km - especially not in sov warfare where you have the potential for massive ships with huge ranges to be on grid if a big fight does escalate.

I guess the situation you describe would ultimately be a stalemate over that particular grid but not an unbreakable stalemate.
More ships arriving or other grids to fight over offer alternate forms of resolution.

but what would I know, I'm just a salvager

Amyclas Amatin
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#1062 - 2015-03-10 20:19:35 UTC
afkalt wrote:
Amyclas Amatin wrote:
Sigras wrote:
Really this whole thread is trying to answer one question, what is "effective military control"?

If I have 20 battleships and 10 guardians on grid and you have 30 vagabonds and 10 scimitars on grid who has "effective military control"? Sure I cant catch you, but you cannot come near my fleet or you die.

Does a super kite-y fleet with the ability to run away exert military control?

The biggest problem is that the answer to that question IS going to effect the fleet meta out in 0.0 and there is no getting around that.


You have 20 battleships and 10 guardians on one one system.


I have 5 ceptors spread in 5 systems of the constellation and give you the finger.

You have no presence in another 5 systems of the constellation but somehow feel entitled to "hold" them.
Fixed that there.


A doesn't imply B.

For more information on the New Order of High-Sec, please visit: http://www.minerbumping.com/

Remember that whenever you have a bad day in EVE, the correct reponse is "Thank you CCP, may I please have another?"

Freedom Nadd
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#1063 - 2015-03-10 20:20:17 UTC
gascanu wrote:
i really don't understand why CCP wants those sov tools to be fitted on ceptors/frigs; after years and years of needing caps/supercaps for taking sov, now we are going to completely the other extreme around, you only need one ceptor....

like really, can anyone find this a bit ********? how about some balance? why this link "must" be allowed on ceptors?
why would anyone use another ship type for harassing sov holders around?

a big fight with tidi and caps/supercaps on field can last hours, so while an alliance is involved in one for example, a gang of 20 ceptors/bombers will be able to reinforce half a region with proposed mechanics... really CCP you are going to extreme with this instead of a more "balanced" option


A basic fact so many who started playing post 2007 fail to realise .... CCP are the biggest trolls involved in this game. The whole ethos of the company was based around making their game as hardcore as possible.

EVE grew too big for them, they had to change to a more normal interaction with customers, and then the unmentionable incident happened spawning the yearly popularity contest and Greed is Good, reinforcing that at its core CCP does not give a damn about its players.

What we are now seeing is CCP desperately trying to reset the last 7 years. Do they care if their subs drop back to 2007 levels? Not a chance because with their jettisoning of WoD and Seattle they can now concentrate on trolling its players again.

They do not want stability, they do not WANT to deal with large fights. If anything they would be perfectly happy with sub 20k online players.
Amyclas Amatin
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#1064 - 2015-03-10 20:22:04 UTC  |  Edited by: Amyclas Amatin
Freedom Nadd wrote:
gascanu wrote:
i really don't understand why CCP wants those sov tools to be fitted on ceptors/frigs; after years and years of needing caps/supercaps for taking sov, now we are going to completely the other extreme around, you only need one ceptor....

like really, can anyone find this a bit ********? how about some balance? why this link "must" be allowed on ceptors?
why would anyone use another ship type for harassing sov holders around?

a big fight with tidi and caps/supercaps on field can last hours, so while an alliance is involved in one for example, a gang of 20 ceptors/bombers will be able to reinforce half a region with proposed mechanics... really CCP you are going to extreme with this instead of a more "balanced" option


A basic fact so many who started playing post 2007 fail to realise .... CCP are the biggest trolls involved in this game. The whole ethos of the company was based around making their game as hardcore as possible.

EVE grew too big for them, they had to change to a more normal interaction with customers, and then the unmentionable incident happened spawning the yearly popularity contest and Greed is Good, reinforcing that at its core CCP does not give a damn about its players.

What we are now seeing is CCP desperately trying to reset the last 7 years. Do they care if their subs drop back to 2007 levels? Not a chance because with their jettisoning of WoD and Seattle they can now concentrate on trolling its players again.

They do not want stability, they do not WANT to deal with large fights. If anything they would be perfectly happy with sub 20k online players.


This is the CCP we deserve.

Keep calm and drink from the cup that is given to you.

For more information on the New Order of High-Sec, please visit: http://www.minerbumping.com/

Remember that whenever you have a bad day in EVE, the correct reponse is "Thank you CCP, may I please have another?"

GeeShizzle MacCloud
#1065 - 2015-03-10 20:25:06 UTC
afkalt wrote:
Amyclas Amatin wrote:
Sigras wrote:
Really this whole thread is trying to answer one question, what is "effective military control"?

If I have 20 battleships and 10 guardians on grid and you have 30 vagabonds and 10 scimitars on grid who has "effective military control"? Sure I cant catch you, but you cannot come near my fleet or you die.

Does a super kite-y fleet with the ability to run away exert military control?

The biggest problem is that the answer to that question IS going to effect the fleet meta out in 0.0 and there is no getting around that.


You have 20 battleships and 10 guardians on one one system.

You have no presence in another 5 systems of the constellation but somehow feel entitled to "hold" them.



Fixed that there.


he never said that was the extent of his forces, just that was the forces on that current contested grid.

but don't let that slant your viewpoint or let you massage what was said to allow you to repeat some parroted line like a lobotomised meth addict.
SilentAsTheGrave
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#1066 - 2015-03-10 20:27:34 UTC
Just reposting what seems to have gained some traction in case it was lost in the pages:

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?
afkalt
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#1067 - 2015-03-10 20:29:27 UTC
Amyclas Amatin wrote:
afkalt wrote:
Amyclas Amatin wrote:
Sigras wrote:
Really this whole thread is trying to answer one question, what is "effective military control"?

If I have 20 battleships and 10 guardians on grid and you have 30 vagabonds and 10 scimitars on grid who has "effective military control"? Sure I cant catch you, but you cannot come near my fleet or you die.

Does a super kite-y fleet with the ability to run away exert military control?

The biggest problem is that the answer to that question IS going to effect the fleet meta out in 0.0 and there is no getting around that.


You have 20 battleships and 10 guardians on one one system.


I have 5 ceptors spread in 5 systems of the constellation and give you the finger.

You have no presence in another 5 systems of the constellation but somehow feel entitled to "hold" them.
Fixed that there.


A doesn't imply B.


Well then there's no problem.

Speaking of, I'm still curious as to the problem. I could fail fit a battlecruiser that aligns so fast it couldnt even be caught by an inty entering the system and troll you with that and still breaks 6.3km/s to break grids. Were I so clinically dumb.

So really...when we get down to it...it's the bubbles. People hate that the can't hide behind walls of bubbles. I get that but what is the eve mantra...ah yes...HTFU.

Or maybe people just have a fundamental hate for the module and are masking it behind the inty smokescreen. I don't know, I just know I can smell the bullshit wafting from this thread on Saturn.
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#1068 - 2015-03-10 20:33:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Alavaria Fera
It doesn't matter for fast you align etc in other fits because the untargeted area of effect interdiction will stop you no matter what

unless you're interdiction nullified... so basically an interceptor or a nullified t3. Some doctrines do use it though (mostly the shooting one person then running tengu)


I do get that people like to be able to just ignore the mechanic. It's nice to not be jammable or dampable when you get in certain undockable ships, after all

Triggered by: Wars of Sovless Agression, Bending the Knee, Twisting the Knife, Eating Sov Wheaties, Bombless Bombers, Fizzlesov, Interceptor Fleets, Running Away, GhostTime Vuln, Renters, Bombs, Bubbles ?

Freedom Nadd
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#1069 - 2015-03-10 20:33:59 UTC
afkalt wrote:
Amyclas Amatin wrote:
afkalt wrote:
Amyclas Amatin wrote:
Sigras wrote:
Really this whole thread is trying to answer one question, what is "effective military control"?

If I have 20 battleships and 10 guardians on grid and you have 30 vagabonds and 10 scimitars on grid who has "effective military control"? Sure I cant catch you, but you cannot come near my fleet or you die.

Does a super kite-y fleet with the ability to run away exert military control?

The biggest problem is that the answer to that question IS going to effect the fleet meta out in 0.0 and there is no getting around that.


You have 20 battleships and 10 guardians on one one system.


I have 5 ceptors spread in 5 systems of the constellation and give you the finger.

You have no presence in another 5 systems of the constellation but somehow feel entitled to "hold" them.
Fixed that there.


A doesn't imply B.


Well then there's no problem.

Speaking of, I'm still curious as to the problem. I could fail fit a battlecruiser that aligns so fast it couldnt even be caught by an inty entering the system and troll you with that and still breaks 6.3km/s to break grids. Were I so clinically dumb.

So really...when we get down to it...it's the bubbles. People hate that the can't hide behind walls of bubbles. I get that but what is the eve mantra...ah yes...HTFU.

Or maybe people just have a fundamental hate for the module and are masking it behind the inty smokescreen. I don't know, I just know I can smell the bullshit wafting from this thread on Saturn.


Or could it just be bad game design and a instinctive dislike of the "Plexing 4 Sov" themepark that CCP seems intent on inflicting on us.
Amyclas Amatin
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#1070 - 2015-03-10 20:34:59 UTC
afkalt wrote:
Amyclas Amatin wrote:
afkalt wrote:
Amyclas Amatin wrote:
Sigras wrote:
Really this whole thread is trying to answer one question, what is "effective military control"?

If I have 20 battleships and 10 guardians on grid and you have 30 vagabonds and 10 scimitars on grid who has "effective military control"? Sure I cant catch you, but you cannot come near my fleet or you die.

Does a super kite-y fleet with the ability to run away exert military control?

The biggest problem is that the answer to that question IS going to effect the fleet meta out in 0.0 and there is no getting around that.


You have 20 battleships and 10 guardians on one one system.


I have 5 ceptors spread in 5 systems of the constellation and give you the finger.

You have no presence in another 5 systems of the constellation but somehow feel entitled to "hold" them.
Fixed that there.


A doesn't imply B.


Well then there's no problem.

Speaking of, I'm still curious as to the problem. I could fail fit a battlecruiser that aligns so fast it couldnt even be caught by an inty entering the system and troll you with that and still breaks 6.3km/s to break grids. Were I so clinically dumb.

So really...when we get down to it...it's the bubbles. People hate that the can't hide behind walls of bubbles. I get that but what is the eve mantra...ah yes...HTFU.

Or maybe people just have a fundamental hate for the module and are masking it behind the inty smokescreen. I don't know, I just know I can smell the bullshit wafting from this thread on Saturn.



Going by that logic, bubbles shouldn't exist. Honor brawls with module points only right? HTFU and all...

For more information on the New Order of High-Sec, please visit: http://www.minerbumping.com/

Remember that whenever you have a bad day in EVE, the correct reponse is "Thank you CCP, may I please have another?"

FearlessLittleToaster
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#1071 - 2015-03-10 20:36:15 UTC
Already published this on The Mittani Dot Com but this is the correct thread so I am leaving it here as well.

I propose an additional mechanic be added called Entosis Shock. Entosis shock would be very simple in operation. If a ship with an active Entosis Link stops capturing something before the capture is complete it is immobilized for twenty seconds.

This key is to give an interceptor that warped onto the target structure time to catch the attacker, or let a cruiser or destroyer warped to zero by a combat prober close and point. In short it would attach a risk to choosing to run away when reds come to chase you off. The choices forced on the attacker when challenged would be far more interesting than under the current setup. Do they burn off right away to maximize their odds of escape, or stick it out and see if they can kite while still on grid? If an attacker faces a real risk of getting caught do they fit for combat or max speed?

Not only would it give attackers a reason to worry about losing their ships, this idea would work quite well with the lore. Entosis implies that the capsuleer running the Entosis Link is either enveloping the operational systems of that structure with his mind or injecting his mind into those systems. It’s hardly a stretch that the premature end of that process could be incapacitating for a brief time.

If this suggestion was adopted a wider variety of counters would become possible. The only real way to catch a fleeing speed fit interceptor sitting 110km away, even if it cannot warp, is with a faster frigate. With Entosis shock a bomber could actually sneak up on the target and use their lack of a decloaking delay to hit it with a sensor dampener. Another interceptor could fit a damp for much the same purpose. Ewar would be extremely dangerous. Attacking pilots would face a choice between a “distance tank” to prevent getting caught or being near the target to make sensor damps less effective. A red in local would become a potential threat for the attacker to evaluate instead of just an audience to be tormented. This mechanic would also be minimally disruptive to actual combat; so long as they stayed close enough to the sov structure being reinforced the attacker could fly their ship completely normally.

The real problem with the trollceptor is the fact that it cannot be killed unless the pilot screws up or is horribly unlucky. Blowing up spaceships is fun for the defender and will encourage them to defend their space. Chasing uncatchable ships for hours on end will just motivate them to stop logging in. Losing spaceships repeatedly will discourage an attacker who is just in it for the laughs; bathing in the impotent tears of the defender will cause them to troll harder. Whatever changes the dev team chooses to make to the Entosis Link need to address this by making the attacker killable instead of merely counterable. To leave it as is will make content denial the new rule of nullsec, same as the old rule.
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#1072 - 2015-03-10 20:39:58 UTC
Amyclas Amatin wrote:
afkalt wrote:

Well then there's no problem.

Speaking of, I'm still curious as to the problem. I could fail fit a battlecruiser that aligns so fast it couldnt even be caught by an inty entering the system and troll you with that and still breaks 6.3km/s to break grids. Were I so clinically dumb.

So really...when we get down to it...it's the bubbles. People hate that the can't hide behind walls of bubbles. I get that but what is the eve mantra...ah yes...HTFU.

Or maybe people just have a fundamental hate for the module and are masking it behind the inty smokescreen. I don't know, I just know I can smell the bullshit wafting from this thread on Saturn.

Going by that logic, bubbles shouldn't exist. Honor brawls with module points only right? HTFU and all...

Something about off grid boosts, falcon alts, etc etc

Triggered by: Wars of Sovless Agression, Bending the Knee, Twisting the Knife, Eating Sov Wheaties, Bombless Bombers, Fizzlesov, Interceptor Fleets, Running Away, GhostTime Vuln, Renters, Bombs, Bubbles ?

GeeShizzle MacCloud
#1073 - 2015-03-10 20:45:19 UTC  |  Edited by: GeeShizzle MacCloud
totally not a troll post at all...

if you start an entosis module cycling then at the end of the module cycle, if its unsucessfull in any way you get the dreaded Entosis FATIGUE! where you cant re engage an entosis module for 45 minutes and you cannot post on the eve-o forums for a day.

lol!


i mean we've barely got a framework for any idea on a starting point for balance or scope that the balance should be restricted by right now. not that i want Fozzie to step in and actually act like a Developer in charge of a major set of features at all.
SilentAsTheGrave
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#1074 - 2015-03-10 20:49:29 UTC
FearlessLittleToaster wrote:
I propose an additional mechanic be added called Entosis Shock. Entosis shock would be very simple in operation. If a ship with an active Entosis Link stops capturing something before the capture is complete it is immobilized for twenty seconds.

So the moment it gets hit with a damp/ecm it is stuck and will most likely be immediately probed out and killed. I'm really not a fan of root mechanics and this also would ensure anything that is not sporting a brick tank is a non-option. Which of course means getting a brick tank past the few choke points to contest all the AFK style empires further into null would be incredibly difficult.

Over all, a terrible idea. Straight
Sigras
Conglomo
#1075 - 2015-03-10 20:53:11 UTC  |  Edited by: ISD Ezwal
Amyclas Amatin wrote:
afkalt wrote:
Amyclas Amatin wrote:
Sigras wrote:
Really this whole thread is trying to answer one question, what is "effective military control"?

If I have 20 battleships and 10 guardians on grid and you have 30 vagabonds and 10 scimitars on grid who has "effective military control"? Sure I cant catch you, but you cannot come near my fleet or you die.

Does a super kite-y fleet with the ability to run away exert military control?

The biggest problem is that the answer to that question IS going to effect the fleet meta out in 0.0 and there is no getting around that.

You have 20 battleships and 10 guardians on one one system.


I have 5 ceptors spread in 5 systems of the constellation and give you the finger.

You have no presence in another 5 systems of the constellation but somehow feel entitled to "hold" them.
Fixed that there.

A doesn't imply B.

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

Say CCP makes the link module 1 PG and 1 CPU with no cap cost and no other effects, sov warfare will be vagabonds and ishtars because up til now that is the one thing they're not good at in 0.0

In addition to being cheap, risk averse, hard to kill, difficult to catch and lethal in groups, they'll also be able to take and hold sov.
afkalt
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#1076 - 2015-03-10 20:54:07 UTC  |  Edited by: afkalt
Amyclas Amatin wrote:
afkalt wrote:

Speaking of, I'm still curious as to the problem. I could fail fit a battlecruiser that aligns so fast it couldnt even be caught by an inty entering the system and troll you with that and still breaks 6.3km/s to break grids. Were I so clinically dumb.

So really...when we get down to it...it's the bubbles. People hate that the can't hide behind walls of bubbles. I get that but what is the eve mantra...ah yes...HTFU.

Or maybe people just have a fundamental hate for the module and are masking it behind the inty smokescreen. I don't know, I just know I can smell the bullshit wafting from this thread on Saturn.



Going by that logic, bubbles shouldn't exist. Honor brawls with module points only right? HTFU and all...


Or maybe I have higher expectations of what defending things ought to be.

So at least we've bottomed it out now. The "problem"...sorry - witch you're trying hunt - is nullification. The same thing regularly cried about, because it makes inattentive bears sad pandas.
Harry Saq
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#1077 - 2015-03-10 20:57:37 UTC
If the desire is to have grid superiority to put the thing on the thing to do the thing, then thing should require 100% attention of the capsuleer to the point of his ship essentially being just out there where he has no way of possibly achieving the objective and focusing on fighting and defending his ship (let alone speed tanking/trolling).

This should be accomplished through a completely immersive interface that requires his direct control and input. Originally I proposed the following: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5546663#post5546663

In essence this module could provide a bridge that is the way to bring in a dust514 interface or a Valkyrie interface, to provide some objective that the capsuleer running the entosis link must achieve, that keeps him fully engaged (and preferably entertained, since this is a game after all).

However, since "This is Eve"...oh wait, not the cool vid, but the harsh reality that most updates and features are primarily numbers tweaking using already existing code and interfaces, perhaps a minigame THAT ISN'T THE EXPLORATION MINI-GAME, but rather something simple like a pop-up window where the capsuleer needs to use his arrow keys to literally keep a thing on a thing, while random factors make the thing not want to be on the thing or whatever (SOMETHING THAT IS EASY TO ADD TO ALREADY EXISTING CODE), and call it a manual calibration or override or whatever the hell.

Point is, make the Entosis module be the thing that you click to INTERFACE with something that is completely immersive or just partially, but TOTALLY actively involved so that the capsuleer has to choose whether to hit the objective or pilot his ship, but it is impossible to do both well. Do this by whatever means is the easiest to implement since the desire is to keep it simple, and then possibly expand to more awesome things later (like the Valkyrie or Dust type ideas).
Amyclas Amatin
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#1078 - 2015-03-10 21:02:03 UTC
afkalt wrote:
Amyclas Amatin wrote:
afkalt wrote:

Speaking of, I'm still curious as to the problem. I could fail fit a battlecruiser that aligns so fast it couldnt even be caught by an inty entering the system and troll you with that and still breaks 6.3km/s to break grids. Were I so clinically dumb.

So really...when we get down to it...it's the bubbles. People hate that the can't hide behind walls of bubbles. I get that but what is the eve mantra...ah yes...HTFU.

Or maybe people just have a fundamental hate for the module and are masking it behind the inty smokescreen. I don't know, I just know I can smell the bullshit wafting from this thread on Saturn.



Going by that logic, bubbles shouldn't exist. Honor brawls with module points only right? HTFU and all...


Or maybe I have higher expectations of what defending things ought to be.

So at least we've bottomed it out now. The "problem"...sorry - witch you're trying hunt - is nullification. The same thing regularly cried about, because it makes inattentive bears sad pandas.


How exactly would you, defend sov and deal with every other ceptor that comes to entosis your stuff?

For more information on the New Order of High-Sec, please visit: http://www.minerbumping.com/

Remember that whenever you have a bad day in EVE, the correct reponse is "Thank you CCP, may I please have another?"

Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#1079 - 2015-03-10 21:05:34 UTC
Amyclas Amatin wrote:
afkalt wrote:
Amyclas Amatin wrote:
afkalt wrote:

Speaking of, I'm still curious as to the problem. I could fail fit a battlecruiser that aligns so fast it couldnt even be caught by an inty entering the system and troll you with that and still breaks 6.3km/s to break grids. Were I so clinically dumb.

So really...when we get down to it...it's the bubbles. People hate that the can't hide behind walls of bubbles. I get that but what is the eve mantra...ah yes...HTFU.

Or maybe people just have a fundamental hate for the module and are masking it behind the inty smokescreen. I don't know, I just know I can smell the bullshit wafting from this thread on Saturn.



Going by that logic, bubbles shouldn't exist. Honor brawls with module points only right? HTFU and all...


Or maybe I have higher expectations of what defending things ought to be.

So at least we've bottomed it out now. The "problem"...sorry - witch you're trying hunt - is nullification. The same thing regularly cried about, because it makes inattentive bears sad pandas.


How exactly would you, defend sov and deal with every other ceptor that comes to entosis your stuff?

I think the intention is that you can't. This will shake up sov, unlike well... fatigue

Triggered by: Wars of Sovless Agression, Bending the Knee, Twisting the Knife, Eating Sov Wheaties, Bombless Bombers, Fizzlesov, Interceptor Fleets, Running Away, GhostTime Vuln, Renters, Bombs, Bubbles ?

Amyclas Amatin
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#1080 - 2015-03-10 21:11:55 UTC
What the political meta needs to counter this change in mechanics... is a real blue donut to keep the smaller groups out.

For more information on the New Order of High-Sec, please visit: http://www.minerbumping.com/

Remember that whenever you have a bad day in EVE, the correct reponse is "Thank you CCP, may I please have another?"