These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
FT Diomedes
The Graduates
#1101 - 2015-03-11 03:17:42 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.


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?

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

Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#1102 - 2015-03-11 03:36:36 UTC
FT Diomedes 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.

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



Fixed that there.


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?

You have the wrong 0.0 dream, I think.

It's supposed to be endless capture-the-flag (or sov laser the structure) and you actually live elsewhere...

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 ?

Galphii
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#1103 - 2015-03-11 03:53:49 UTC
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.

"Wow, that internet argument completely changed my fundamental belief system," said no one, ever.

Borachon
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#1104 - 2015-03-11 04:12:38 UTC  |  Edited by: CCP Logibro
IHubs are the issue, not TCUs. TCUs are comparatively cheap and small (100m and fit in an industrial), and only a modest upgrade to most systems in Fozziesov. IHubs, on the other hand, are currently expensive, take freighters to install, jump freighters to install upgrades to level 3, and freighters to upgrade past that.

More structures that size and cost to reinforce or disable as opposed to a single ihub holding billions in upgrades would relieve a lot of these issues. Actually, I just watched TMC's metashow from this past week, and Mittani and Progodlegend had a nice discussion of this at around the one hour mark.
Wanda Fayne
#1105 - 2015-03-11 04:14:15 UTC
SilentAsTheGrave wrote:
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?


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.

"your comments just confirms this whole idea is totally pathetic" -Lan Wang-

  • - "hub humping station gamey neutral logi warspam wankery" -Ralph King-Griffin-
Burl en Daire
M.O.M.S. Corp
#1106 - 2015-03-11 04:30:52 UTC  |  Edited by: CCP Logibro
Borachon wrote:
IHubs are the issue, not TCUs. TCUs are comparatively cheap and small (100m and fit in an industrial), and only a modest upgrade to most systems in Fozziesov. IHubs, on the other hand, are currently expensive, take freighters to install, jump freighters to install upgrades to level 3, and freighters to upgrade past that.

More structures that size and cost to reinforce or disable as opposed to a single ihub holding billions in upgrades would relieve a lot of these issues. Actually, I just watched TMC's metashow from this past week, and Mittani and Progodlegend had a nice discussion of this at around the one hour mark.



I haven't been able to watch it yet, I'm glad you posted that because I am very interested in hearing some different feedback from one of the people that "runs the game". I'll try to watch it now, thanks.

What do you think the optimal number of IHubs would be for a system and/or what would you base that number off of?
What would be an appropriate size (m3) and cost?

Yesterday's weirdness is tomorrow's reason why. Hunter S. Thompson

Burl en Daire
M.O.M.S. Corp
#1107 - 2015-03-11 04:38:09 UTC
Wanda Fayne wrote:
SilentAsTheGrave wrote:
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?


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.

Yesterday's weirdness is tomorrow's reason why. Hunter S. Thompson

Wanda Fayne
#1108 - 2015-03-11 04:48:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Wanda Fayne
Burl en Daire wrote:
Wanda Fayne wrote:


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.


True, but the defender will also be sporting one, now isn't that raising your interest already?
Edit: Are you there to provoke a fight, or seriously contend for sov?

"your comments just confirms this whole idea is totally pathetic" -Lan Wang-

  • - "hub humping station gamey neutral logi warspam wankery" -Ralph King-Griffin-
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#1109 - 2015-03-11 04:53:18 UTC
Wanda Fayne wrote:
Burl en Daire wrote:
Wanda Fayne wrote:


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.


True, but the defender will also be sporting one, now isn't that raising your interest already?
Edit: Are you there to provoke a fight, or seriously contend for sov?

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

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 ?

Borachon
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#1110 - 2015-03-11 04:54:49 UTC
Burl en Daire wrote:

What do you think the optimal number of IHubs would be for a system and/or what would you base that number off of?
What would be an appropriate size (m3) and cost?


Good question, and I'm not sure about the answer. It also starts to get away from the specifics of the entosis link fits, so I'm not sure it's strictly on-topic for this thread.

To be brief, though: PGL's suggestion was for an ihub and each upgrade to fit in an industrial, be buildable locally (they're currently sourced from NPCs in CONCORD stations), and have them each cost a few tens of millions of isk. That's the right area, though I might make them slightly more expensive so that they keep getting targetted, perhaps 150-200m isk total for a modestly upgraded (L3) ihub. At that level, the attacker and defender's risks are more commensurate, it's easy enough for an alliance moving to nullsec to get reasonable economic benefits quickly, but if it's occasionally killed it's not catastrophic.

To keep this on topic, with reasonably upgraded ihubs in the 150m isk range, the purely economic annoyance of long range entosis links on interceptors doesn't bother me as much. The morale and general harassment costs do matter, and are easy for people not used to sov warfare to underestimate, but are also harder to quantify. That's why I'd still prefer S/M/L/XL size entosis modules with ranges and fitting costs in line with appropriately-sized high-slot weapons (say s/m/l/xl beam lasers).
Wanda Fayne
#1111 - 2015-03-11 05:03:22 UTC
Alavaria Fera wrote:
Wanda Fayne wrote:
Burl en Daire wrote:
Wanda Fayne wrote:


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.


True, but the defender will also be sporting one, now isn't that raising your interest already?
Edit: Are you there to provoke a fight, or seriously contend for sov?

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...

"your comments just confirms this whole idea is totally pathetic" -Lan Wang-

  • - "hub humping station gamey neutral logi warspam wankery" -Ralph King-Griffin-
Carniflex
StarHunt
Mordus Angels
#1112 - 2015-03-11 05:06:39 UTC
ISD Ezwal wrote:
Carniflex wrote:
They don't show netflix legally outside of US :/
Yes, they do.

Good to know. I was not aware that they provide service only to a part of EU not the full set. I happen to be in the part where they do not offer the service.

Here, sanity... niiiice sanity, come to daddy... okay, that's a good sanity... THWONK! GOT the bastard.

Veskrashen
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#1113 - 2015-03-11 05:27:03 UTC
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!

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

Amyclas Amatin
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#1114 - 2015-03-11 05:36:12 UTC
game mechanics vs GEWNS

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
#1115 - 2015-03-11 05:38:28 UTC
Oh so it's about us again huh.

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

Mike Azariah
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#1116 - 2015-03-11 05:40:43 UTC
No, Game mechanics vs stagnation

m

Mike Azariah  ┬──┬ ¯|(ツ)

Nolak Ataru
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#1117 - 2015-03-11 05:50:53 UTC
Mike Azariah wrote:
No, Game mechanics vs stagnation


Aaaaand he dodges my entire callout. GJ.
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#1118 - 2015-03-11 05:57:22 UTC
Nolak Ataru wrote:
Mike Azariah wrote:
No, Game mechanics vs stagnation

Aaaaand he dodges my entire callout. GJ.

Our 0.0 dream is stagnation.

So it has to be ended.

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 ?

Wanda Fayne
#1119 - 2015-03-11 05:59:38 UTC
Alavaria Fera wrote:
Nolak Ataru wrote:
Mike Azariah wrote:
No, Game mechanics vs stagnation

Aaaaand he dodges my entire callout. GJ.

Our 0.0 dream is stagnation.

So it has to be ended.


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

"your comments just confirms this whole idea is totally pathetic" -Lan Wang-

  • - "hub humping station gamey neutral logi warspam wankery" -Ralph King-Griffin-
knobber Jobbler
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#1120 - 2015-03-11 06:38:07 UTC
Mike Azariah wrote:
No, Game mechanics vs stagnation

m



Time sheets replacing pap links. It's not viable long term.