These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Eli Apol
Definitely a nullsec alt
#1281 - 2015-03-11 20:11:01 UTC
It amazes me how people can say one thing:
xttz wrote:
The common litmus test when it comes to balance is to ask if something can only reliably be stopped by something else doing exactly the same job.


and then completely contradict themselves in their next post:
xttz wrote:
If the only viable counter is ECM


which isn't the *only* counter by the way, since you already seemed to admit:
xttz wrote:
It really doesn't matter the slightest bit if a single Interceptor can potentially be caught by some specialist fit faction ship

And also neglected to mention the T3 dessie which is probably a stronger counter than a faction ship anyways...

and of course ANY OTHER SHIP sat at 0 running a defensive link.

but what would I know, I'm just a salvager
Jenn aSide
Soul Machines
The Initiative.
#1282 - 2015-03-11 20:12:45 UTC
Kristian Hackett wrote:
xttz wrote:
Kristian Hackett wrote:
Why everyone is so convinced they need to catch the Interceptor is beyond me.


The goal of the troll is to force a reaction and get out alive. They don't expect to capture anything, if they do it's a bonus. If the only viable counter is ECM the attacker is risking nothing and this violates the underlying risk versus reward aspect of EVE.

Yea that's understandable, but if the sole reaction is a single ECM ship telling the troll to **** off every time, the troll is going to get bored.

Seriously, it'd get to the point of:
Defender: Back again for another round, Troll?
Troll: Yep. Still trying to get a rise out of you guys.
D: Not happening, all we need is just me to counter you. You're not worth our time.
T: ... Thanks for the blow to my ego.
D: Any time. Now kindly GTFO.


If the person like to troll, the people 'anti-trolling' him will get tired 1st. This entosis link is going to be a griefing tool that makes shooting SBUs (to generate a lot of notices) look like child's play.
Veskrashen
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#1283 - 2015-03-11 20:13:39 UTC
Kristian Hackett wrote:
xttz wrote:
Kristian Hackett wrote:
Why everyone is so convinced they need to catch the Interceptor is beyond me.


The goal of the troll is to force a reaction and get out alive. They don't expect to capture anything, if they do it's a bonus. If the only viable counter is ECM the attacker is risking nothing and this violates the underlying risk versus reward aspect of EVE.

Yea that's understandable, but if the sole reaction is a single ECM ship telling the troll to **** off every time, the troll is going to get bored.

Not to mention that, depending on how the link capture mechanic works when you regain lock mid-cycle and whether you have to "reconnect" or not for a cycle after regaining lock, you could potentially defend all the objectives in an entire system with 1 Griffin.

Which means that it's entirely possible that Trollceptors could be easily countered simply by being active in the space you hold, and be willing to drop an ECM mod into a mid slot when needed. Not exactly a huge burden.

We Gallente have a saying: "CCP created the Gallente Militia to train the Fighters..."
Kristian Hackett
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#1284 - 2015-03-11 20:13:49 UTC
Eli Apol wrote:
and of course ANY OTHER SHIP sat at 0 running a defensive link.

You still need to stop the troll's link to reverse the capture... So any other ship is not quite a viable option here.

Aircraft Maintenance - Using a high school diploma to fix what a college degree just f***ed up. "Life is too short to drink cheap beer."
Freedom Nadd
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#1285 - 2015-03-11 20:18:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Freedom Nadd
Falin Whalen wrote:
Freedom Nadd wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Harry Saq wrote:
@CCP Fozzie
Would it be feasible to have the Entosis module activate an interface as suggested in m prior post here: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5570599#post5570599

All of the balance issues mentioned would be answered if the pilot were fully engaged while running the laser, and it would require teamwork, as multiboxing support ships would also not be ideal or feasible.


We'd much rather allow the Entosis Link ship to continue fighting and maneuvering to stay alive while it captures.


Would it be possible to stack defending E-Links to allow a defender who does actually control the field to reverse the timer?

No. Then we have another n+1 problem on our hands. While nice in theory, it will only reinforce the current meta of large alliances in large coalitions waiving their supercaps around, and enforcing a "You must be this tall in order to ride the sov train." mentality that is being played out presently.


Which would lead to meaningful content and allow those who dominate the grid to control the FozzieSov(tm) fight.

As for SupersOnline, with the upcoming FozzieNerfs(tm) to supers as damage dealers and the CarrierCaust(tm), well at least they would have a function. For 4 hours every day.
** edit : Only defensive links would stack, offensive links remain as planned **
Eli Apol
Definitely a nullsec alt
#1286 - 2015-03-11 20:19:30 UTC
Kristian Hackett wrote:
Eli Apol wrote:
and of course ANY OTHER SHIP sat at 0 running a defensive link.

You still need to stop the troll's link to reverse the capture... So any other ship is not quite a viable option here.

Semantics wise you've stopped the capture and can do it with an afk cruiser that can perma tank about 80dps so have countered their intentions...but yeah a midslot sensor damp or ECM satisfies your point as well :)

but what would I know, I'm just a salvager
Veskrashen
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#1287 - 2015-03-11 20:19:54 UTC
Kristian Hackett wrote:
Eli Apol wrote:
and of course ANY OTHER SHIP sat at 0 running a defensive link.

You still need to stop the troll's link to reverse the capture... So any other ship is not quite a viable option here.

According to Gewns, the Trollceptor simply buggers off to harass another structure, so not really any issue there. If you get on grid and link up, you win under that scenario.

Otherwise, just make sure you have DLAs and SeBos to sick your drones on them and you're good.

We Gallente have a saying: "CCP created the Gallente Militia to train the Fighters..."
Promiscuous Female
GBS Logistics and Fives Support
#1288 - 2015-03-11 20:21:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Promiscuous Female
Mike Azariah wrote:
Promiscuous Female wrote:

technically an ishtar fleet doesn't require its members to push F1 because drone assist still exists


You're welcome

m

uh we want drone assist to be completely removed

you may notice that we from time to time lower ourselves into using the fotm

this is primarily because us using the fotm is unacceptable to ccp and causes it to be nerfed, which is the primary objective

see:
aoe doomsday titans
remote cyno doomsdays
use of carriers/supercarriers as hauling vehicles par excellence
drakes
tracking titans
doomsdays being shot at subcaps
unlimited drone assist

and probably some more that xttz or other older goons know, i wasn't actually playing for half of these
Veskrashen
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#1289 - 2015-03-11 20:22:43 UTC
Freedom Nadd wrote:

Which would lead to meaningful content and allow those who dominate the grid to control the FozzieSov(tm) fight.
** edit : Only defensive links would stack, offensive links remain as planned **

Which means you don't actually have to control the grid, you simply need to be able to bring more guys than the other side, i.e. N+1. Which is what this mechanic is supposed to avoid. If you can "win" by putting a dozen more ships on grid than the other guy and never actually interact in any way, that's not a good solution.

We Gallente have a saying: "CCP created the Gallente Militia to train the Fighters..."
Duffyman
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#1290 - 2015-03-11 20:24:52 UTC
What I still don't understand is why certain entities are pushing so hard for ceptors to be allowed to use sov laser. Do you even plan to take and keep sov? Will you defend it with interceptors?
Zappity
New Eden Tank Testing Services
#1291 - 2015-03-11 20:24:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Zappity
CCP Fozzie wrote:
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.

Exactly. The end point should be that trollceptors are a valid threat to unoccupied space but not a threat to occupied space. I think this is already the case. Trollceptors in occupied space will just be easy killmails. The ability to ring-fence your space would be bad because of the predictable results.

Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec and nullsec.
Eli Apol
Definitely a nullsec alt
#1292 - 2015-03-11 20:25:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Eli Apol
Duffyman wrote:
What I still don't understand is why certain entities are pushing so hard for ceptors to be allowed to use sov laser. Do you even plan to take and keep sov? Will you defend it with interceptors?

Fozzie Goals wrote:
The Entosis Link itself should have the minimum possible effect on what ships and tactics players can choose.

Why do certain entities want to remove a ship and tactic?

edit: Pretty sure this won't get answered honestly if at all and sorry if it starts the grrr-ceptors runaround for the hundredth time.

but what would I know, I'm just a salvager
Kristian Hackett
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#1293 - 2015-03-11 20:27:44 UTC
Veskrashen wrote:
Kristian Hackett wrote:
Eli Apol wrote:
and of course ANY OTHER SHIP sat at 0 running a defensive link.

You still need to stop the troll's link to reverse the capture... So any other ship is not quite a viable option here.

According to Gewns, the Trollceptor simply buggers off to harass another structure, so not really any issue there. If you get on grid and link up, you win under that scenario.

Otherwise, just make sure you have DLAs and SeBos to sick your drones on them and you're good.

That's the argument I keep seeing. Troll is going to just keep griefing and you need to keep playing whack-a-mole to keep up. Can it get old after a while? Sure. But in the same regard the troll is going to get bored with the same response after the 4th or 5th structure. All things considered it just means that Sov holders will need to maintain an active defensive presence in their systems.

Aircraft Maintenance - Using a high school diploma to fix what a college degree just f***ed up. "Life is too short to drink cheap beer."
Kristian Hackett
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#1294 - 2015-03-11 20:33:30 UTC
I think what people might find to be the scariest thought here is if the NPSI communities decide to do Trollceptor roams. At that point, no Sov is safe! *insert evil laugh here*

Aircraft Maintenance - Using a high school diploma to fix what a college degree just f***ed up. "Life is too short to drink cheap beer."
Freedom Nadd
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#1295 - 2015-03-11 20:35:57 UTC  |  Edited by: Freedom Nadd
Veskrashen wrote:
Freedom Nadd wrote:

Which would lead to meaningful content and allow those who dominate the grid to control the FozzieSov(tm) fight.
** edit : Only defensive links would stack, offensive links remain as planned **

Which means you don't actually have to control the grid, you simply need to be able to bring more guys than the other side, i.e. N+1. Which is what this mechanic is supposed to avoid. If you can "win" by putting a dozen more ships on grid than the other guy and never actually interact in any way, that's not a good solution.



Please define for me what "Controlling the grid" actually means?

Consider Control of a battlefield, to any military minded individual it means having the forces and multipliers available to stop the enemy from completing their tactical goals and maintaining the initiative.

That can be achieved with either forces working with multipliers (such as tanks, air strike or other indirect fire weaponry), better trained and equipped troops, higher moral or in the Rorke's Drift model, bodies thrown at the barricades until the pile of dead is so high the enemy dies under the weight of the corpses.

All of these options are valid control mechanisms, apply small gang thinking to what should be end game content is petty and lacking in scope.

One thing sorely lacking in this entire discussion is that the attacker SHOULD be responsible for mounting an efficient attack, by knowing their enemy and having the forces and multipliers available to follow through and complete the attack. Rather we havea discussion where the premium content ingame is being reduced to CODE. style grieving play.
Harry Saq
Of Tears and ISK
ISK.Net
#1296 - 2015-03-11 20:44:55 UTC
Consolidating my posts for posterity...
Here are the goals of the Entosis Module as stated in the original post:

  • As much as possible, the Entosis Link capture progress should reflect which group has effective military control of the grid.
  • The optimal strategy for fighting over a location with the Entosis Link should be to gain effective control of the grid.
  • The Entosis Link itself should have the minimum possible effect on what ships and tactics players can choose.
  • The restrictions and penalties on the Entosis Link should be as simple and understandable as possible.

The DevBlog states this:

  • If two or more Entosis Links belonging to different “sides” are operational on the same structure at the same time, neither will have any effect and all capture will be paused. This remains true even if one side has more Links operational on the structure than the other side.

CCP Fozzie has further clarified the following:

  • 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.
  • An active Entosis Link would prevent cloaking for the duration of its cycle.
  • We're currently leaning towards notifying when the capture impact begins, so while the module is in the warmup cycle it would not send a notification. That's open to change as we go forward though.
  • Warping is blocked by the system literally not allowing the ship with the active Entosis Link to engage warp under any circumstances. It's not a scram or disruptor effect so it's not impacted by stabs or nullification or anything else. It also doesn't have an impact on MWDs or MJDs. If we want to add restrictions on those modules we can, but the actual warp prevention mechanic doesn't affect them.
  • (In regards to Capital Ships) The initial warmup period would be longer, but once an Entosis Link is running past its first cycle, capture speed is the same no matter the cycle time. All jumping will be prevented while the link is active.
  • (In regards to a ship being disabled) We'd much rather allow the Entosis Link ship to continue fighting and maneuvering to stay alive while it captures.


My original proposal was this:
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5570599#post5570599
All of the balance issues mentioned would be answered if the pilot were fully engaged while running the laser, and it would require teamwork, as multiboxing support ships would also not be ideal or feasible.

My supporting arguments are as follows:

  1. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5572890#post5572890
  2. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5572931#post5572931
  3. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5572949#post5572949
  4. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5572983#post5572983
  5. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5573051#post5573051
  6. In order to stay in line with the mechanics and goals stated by CCP Fozzie, I would propose that the "objective" I referred to throughout my arguments be to either simply maintain your lock (system naturally trying to jam you out; applies to both the attackers AND defenders), or sustain progress during the cycle (this was undefined as the original DevBlog only state that progress was paused while two opposing links ran, but didn't state how that actually played out, whatever that is, my suggestion just means progress is similarly paused if you are not working towards the objective as well)

TLDR:

  • Entosis link activates an interface (challenging fun objective based mini-game that doesn't suck, where the objective is maintaining a status of somekind)
  • Not maintaining the interface results in the same stasis that an opposing side's active entosis creates OR
  • Loss of target lock, and the module continues to cycle as though you were ECM jammed, or lost lock for whatever reason
  • Meets all the balancing objectives above
  • Eliminates/drastically reduces effectiveness of multiple alts run by a singe player (makes widescale trolling by a multi-alt individual much more difficult to impossible; atleast not simultaneously)
  • Attacking and defending player can choose where they put their focus (maintaining objective or fighting/staying alive)
  • Avoids N+1 but still promotes teamwork
  • Uses existing mechanics
Veskrashen
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#1297 - 2015-03-11 20:50:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Veskrashen
Duffyman wrote:
What I still don't understand is why certain entities are pushing so hard for ceptors to be allowed to use sov laser. Do you even plan to take and keep sov? Will you defend it with interceptors?

Maybe and maybe.

EDIT: And maybe we just want to ensure that any new sov system can't easily be gamed by the existing powers that be.

We Gallente have a saying: "CCP created the Gallente Militia to train the Fighters..."
Veskrashen
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#1298 - 2015-03-11 20:55:42 UTC
Freedom Nadd wrote:
Veskrashen wrote:
Freedom Nadd wrote:

Which would lead to meaningful content and allow those who dominate the grid to control the FozzieSov(tm) fight.
** edit : Only defensive links would stack, offensive links remain as planned **

Which means you don't actually have to control the grid, you simply need to be able to bring more guys than the other side, i.e. N+1. Which is what this mechanic is supposed to avoid. If you can "win" by putting a dozen more ships on grid than the other guy and never actually interact in any way, that's not a good solution.



Please define for me what "Controlling the grid" actually means?

Consider Control of a battlefield, to any military minded individual it means having the forces and multipliers available to stop the enemy from completing their tactical goals and maintaining the initiative.

I consider control of a battlefield the same way you do - preventing your opponent from completing his goal. I just want you to have to actually interact with that opponent - kill him, jam him, damp him, force him to run away - rather than simply sit around with more active links on the structure than he has. If the counter to Trollceptor is 2x Trollceptors, that's not a good solution - especially if only defensive links stack.

The opposite would be just as bad - if only attacking links stacked, things would be far imbalanced in favor of the Trollceptor Hordes (which I seriously hope becomes a mercenary corp name by June).

We Gallente have a saying: "CCP created the Gallente Militia to train the Fighters..."
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#1299 - 2015-03-11 20:55:52 UTC
Duffyman wrote:
What I still don't understand is why certain entities are pushing so hard for ceptors to be allowed to use sov laser. Do you even plan to take and keep sov? Will you defend it with interceptors?

No they just plan to wreck our 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 ?
Eli Apol
Definitely a nullsec alt
#1300 - 2015-03-11 20:57:29 UTC
Alavaria Fera wrote:
Duffyman wrote:
What I still don't understand is why certain entities are pushing so hard for ceptors to be allowed to use sov laser. Do you even plan to take and keep sov? Will you defend it with interceptors?

No they just plan to make us actively defend our sov.
ftfy

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