Player Features and Ideas Discussion

So, what you are saying is that unless you are the size of Goonswarm, no alliance should hold more than one system? Because one system is already three different grids to defend (TCU, IHub, Station). Assume instead of a few interceptors attacking you, you get attacked by a decent sized alliance. With all your eggs in one basket, you are pretty much screwed.

So, how many people can one system support? About ten ratters, a couple of ice miners, and a couple of miners, assuming it is an awesome system. So tell me, how is this going to work?

Seeing how this works on sisi sooner rather than later would be good. Then we can see if trollceptors will indeed be a problem well before it hits TQ. My primary concern is the 250km range for the t2 entrosis link. If you don't want evasive doctrines dominating, this should be reduced to something like 50km. It might be prudent to have the entosis link also disrupt propulsion mods too.

I like the fuel idea, but it will die with the other good ideas...

Now lets cut to the chase:

As a revolutionary idea, lets put the meat on the table and require the entosis link to have a PLEX in the cargohold to activate.
Does not consume it, just requires it to be in the ship for the link to work.

1. No trolling without substantial risk
2. Any ship in the game can carry one
3. Requires no additional modifications to the existing proposals.

I dare anyone to defeat this idea, as it nails the trolling argument coffin closed.

I love the idea but the cost barrier is a bit steep.

If I was in a smaller gang and wanted to provoke a fight in null using an Elink it would take 700m just to do it, not counting hulls, fits or implants. I would vote it in but I think the entry barrier is too high for this particular mechanic. Also, it would allow only the super rich to troll any group at any time because as many have said, interceptors can't be caught. Take the recent minilove theft, 250B gone and it's no big deal, that is like 350 PLEX that could go to trolling and not many other organizations could do that.

If you're going to die, just quickly use the plex and get 30 days more subscription time to troll sov...

And put another plex in your next ship, don't forget. Can't troll without that...

So, having read the multitude of responses, I've got some thoughts to put down to e-paper:

1. It's critical that this is a module, rather than a deployable. Reship times MATTER when your sov is determined by timer-based mechanics. Even if someone can only poop out one deployable / drone at a time, they can immediately poop out another once the first is destroyed. Killing a ship holding a sovlaser, on the other hand, forces that pilot to head back and get another ship with a sovlaser. In addition, it forces him to do so in a pod - giving the defenders ample time to send him all the way back to wherever his clone is located. Killing a Trollceptor then will remove that threat for a far longer time than killing a deployable pooped out by a Trollceptor.

2. The problem that Gewns et al have with Trollceptors is that they can avoid bubblecamps with instalockers. This is, in fact, by design - the entire idea of Interceptors is to create a class of high speed ships that can go ANYWHERE with ease. Giving them the ability to mount a Sovlaser just means those ships can have an impact on sov - which is a very, very good thing and a necessary thing from a design standpoint. Removing their ability to mount / use a sovlaser means that nullblocs can simply hellbubblecamp the chokepoints and remove all threats to their sov aside from wormholers (who are generally insane and uninterested in sov per se).

3. The 250km range of the T2 module is by design, intended to ensure that the common long range gunboat platforms cannot instagib someone using this module. The intent is to force the defender to either a) bring his own sovlaser and force a fight on his terms or b) force the defender to actually pin down and kill the attacker. The effective grid may be a lot bigger than in FW, but the principle is the same - no progress gets made until the baddies are dead.

4. "It's too hard and boring!!!!" Well, Gewns have repeatedly said that they will happily do boring crap for as long as needed, so they're not at all threatened by Trollceptors and the like. One might also point out that if there's noone attacking a structure, there's no need to defend that structure - meaning you only have to react to actual threats, and you get a notification system for that.

5. Timezones are a necessary part of this mechanic, as otherwise you'd be hard pressed to hold more than a handful of systems with a thousand-man alliance. Someone snarked about "FW is defending one system, we're talking about hundreds" and to some degree he's right. The natural limits to FW zones of control are based on incremental gains with no notification system; if it was instant RF with notification 23/7 it would be nearly impossible to hold any significant territory with the numbers of active PvPers we have.

6. To those who think this won't incentivize PvP, you're wrong. It absolutely will, by design - you have to force off or kill an attacker to save your structure. If you think that's boring then go recruit folks who enjoy solo PvP in high speed small ships. I hear Crosi Wesdo is for hire, at reasonable rates even.

7. Speaking of, if a bunch of nullbears offered a 40m isk bounty for any hostile ship destroyed that had an Entosis Link fitted in their sov space during their "Thunderdome TZ" I'd be willing to bet that they wouldn't have any problems getting folks to hunt sov trolls. Of course, if your idea of "PvP' is playing DOTA until a ping goes out and you then sit on a Titan until you gank some poor Ibis with 30+ supercarriers, you may not have the right mindset for Fozziesov.

8. Keep in mind that the fitting / cap use requirements for the T1 and T2 versions of the Entosis link don't have to have any relationship to each other. You can easily make the T2 version so much more cap hungry that it's nearly impossible for frigates / interceptors / etc to run one and a MWD at the same time - at least without absolutely gimping their fit. No need to restrict it to specific hull sizes or force it into web range via artificial range restrictions. This also to some degree addresses the fuel cost proprosal - IMO it's just another way of saying that instawarping nullified Trollceptors shouldn't be able to contest sov.

9. If one of the design goals is to ensure that all fleet doctrines are viable with this new Entosis Link mechanic, then there absolutely needs to be a version with 250km or so effective range. Otherwise max range kiting sniper doctrines wouldn' t be able to contest sov, which breaks the design goal. Artificially limiting the max range to 50km or so basically means that anything not a brawling doctrine is not viable to contest sov. Which, of course, get bombed into obliviion.

10. Similarly, the idea of "Entosis Shock" which makes a ship immobile if their lock / cycle is broken, or other ideas which render the using vessel immobile or at a severe speed penalty, are equally in violation of the principle to not impact fleet doctrine - as it invalidates any ship class or fleet doctrine that relies on speed to survive.

I look forward to the trollposts of nullbears unable to adapt. Cheers!

Oh so it's about us again huh.

Well it isn't that surprising, our 0.0 dream has to be ended after all

Aaaaand he dodges my entire callout. GJ.

Please, with all due respect. What explicitly is this "0.0 dream" you keep repeating?
Thanks.