Player Features and Ideas Discussion

If we're assuming bypassing camps, cruisers fitting it do NOT solve the problem in the slightest. Neither, frankly, do battlecruisers.

You can fit a cruiser to a 3 second time to enter warp. They can do up over 5200m/s before links. That's without oversizing the prop mod. You can get a stabber up past 10k no problems with an oversized mod.

Point being, they can disengage JUST as easily as an interceptor.


The fundamental "problem" is that some people feel the mechanic is broken (I'm on the fence in light of the math post). Sure, people have got some notions on how to control it, but the blunt truth is you CANNOT realistically control it. You can comfortably fit any subcap class to go so fast that anything which can actually realistically catch it will die in a fire.

If people have issue with "disengage trolling", there are NO arbitrary ship class limits (subcap) which will stop this.

I believe you, my quoted post was an effort to direct the discussions towards THIS and AWAY from the hulls. Because the hulls basically don't matter a damn.

Ban intys, people will use cruisers, ban cruisers and people will use battlecruisers and so it continues. I still am assuming your numbers to be correct and on that assumption there is a fundamental problem here (to my eyes) and it has nothing to do with ship types.


I think that one of the easier ways to attack this, is to have the module affect targeting like stabs do (numbers TBH). Bringing people in closer - you can still upship to known snipers and SeBo your arse off, but then you've a heap of other sacrifices on the cards. Thing is, though, that the defence of burning off grid the minute dscan pops is....essentially unassailable. Bringing people in closer helps a bit but.....not really.

Edit: I wonder.....if the link damaged itself if a lock was lost (ostensibly from burning off grid but also ewar)? Damage you CAN'T nanite away but need to dock?

Perhaps you're missing my point. The basic idea is to use large numbers of trollceptors to generate the pings at 10m/ping, and then periodically bring a fleet to contest the reinforce event. At 10m/ping and expensive sov structures, you have to win the vast majority of both pings and events for the sov structures to be worth it. If pings were riskier or sov structures cheaper, things are different. To relate this back to the main topic of the thread, CCP could handle some of the trollceptor concerns *either* by changing the entosis link to make it risker to use *or* by making sov upgrades cheaper. Some combination of the two might very well make sense, as progodlegend talked about on TMC's metashow this week.

I think it's obtuse statistics though.

Firstly 10m/ping? T2 ships have crappy insurance and trollceptors are based around an 80m mod. So we're upto 100m/ping.

Then the next issue is how do these trollceptors even stand a chance of winning a ping if there's a locally based defender with a T1 ship in dockup to run a defensive link?

There's no reason for that to be anything other than 100% success.

Again it's one of those situations where I agree with the conclusion - that the structures are potentially too expensive to be risked against frivolous attack - but disagree with the method of showing it.

Hey everyone. I've had time to get completely caught up on the thread now. Thanks to everyone who has made constructive suggestions. There's a lot of good ideas raised in this thread so far. Special thanks to the ISD folks for being heroes as always and keeping the thread relatively clean.

We're taking all the feedback into account and putting some work into discussing our options internally and investigating the feasibility of a couple ideas suggested by players so far. I've pulled a couple of quotations from the thread to answer directly and hopefully help clarify a few things.


We do not intend to allow pure evasion tactics to become optimal. If we decide that the concerns expressed by some members of the community about trollcetors are likely to come true, we will take steps to nerf them before release. I want to be clear that the fact we have not announced any new restrictions on the Entosis Link yet isn’t an indication that we will not make any changes. We are intentionally waiting since initial forum reactions have traditionally been a poor foundation to build balance decisions on. We want to make sure there’s enough time for everyone to take a deep breath.


The Entosis Link cannot be stopped partway through the cycle. Once you start the module, you will suffer all the penalties (like being unable to warp or be assisted) until the cycle ends or until your ship explodes, whichever comes first.


If you lose lock for any reason, the module stops capturing but continues to run on your ship until the end of the cycle. Losing lock will not allow you to warp early.


Yes, an active Entosis Link would prevent cloaking for the duration of its cycle.


The current plan is indeed to have the notifications instantaneously sent to all alliance members.

@Fozzie any word on the questions in the post of mine on page 1?

Quoted for reference





I'm specifically interested in the tackle mechanics around supers/MJDs and synergy with things like bastion/triage.

Fair enough; thanks for the additional consideration in this matter.

A somewhat related question; in the most general, unspecific terms, without naming any particular ship or ship ability, is the concept of keeping invaders out of your space, or the ability to catch invaders before they are able to attack your sovereignty structures, something that should be considered a valid defensive option?

Or, perhaps to put it more plainly — are attackers considered to be entitled to choosing their desired battlefield, or should defenders be allowed to use tactics like gatecamping as a valid defense of their holdings?

There's a balance to be found between the two extremes. I think we'd be losing something significant if border control was strong enough to allow people to ignore their interiors. Having some ships move through gatecamps more easily and others less easily is a pretty helpful tool in getting that balance.

Would a tweak such as giving hic bubbles the ability to negate the ability to ignore interdiction be a viable option, as that requires people to be actively defending the border, as opposed to deployable bubbles just being drop and forget?

So if we're talking purely error statistics then single digit percentages would probably be fair for the initial ping. Fair enough.
Yeah 1/10 seems a fair enough guesstimate here for the initial ping and yeah I did copy it and run it with differing figures :)

The issue is then assuming that the attackers only turn up with their ceptors for the RF timer AND that the defence is unable to cope with the event with the 2 day advance notice (after only a small percentage of 'mistakes')