These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Wanda Fayne
#1441 - 2015-03-12 14:12:08 UTC
Veskrashen wrote:


Changing the subject a bit, what about swapping the ranges on the T1/T2 links?

T1 links would have the 250km effective range, but with a 5 minute cycle time. That would mean that someone using a T1 link who lost lock or had to evade would suffer a much greater time penalty before being able to make progress on that (or another) structure. Kiting ships would be forced to remain on field much longer - up to 5 minutes at a time - since the Entosis Link would prevent them from warping out.

While T2 links would have a shorter range, they'd connect much faster, making it easier to stop someone else's progress and to reconnect should you lose your own. It would also allow you to disengage from brawls faster, rather than being pinned on field for 5 minutes in a brawling comp with no remote support available..


This is actually a good suggestion. I was wondering why anyone would choose a brawling fit...

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

  • - "hub humping station gamey neutral logi warspam wankery" -Ralph King-Griffin-
Soldarius
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#1442 - 2015-03-12 14:24:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Soldarius
Veskrashen wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Soldarius wrote:
Now this begs another question: If I am in the process of capturing a sov structure I lose lock and then reestablish lock before the module cycle time is completed, will capture recommence immediately or do I have to wait to start a new cycle on my Entosis Link?

In that situation you would need to wait for you current cycle to complete, then activate the module again (triggering another warmup cycle before the module starts capturing). This means if you lose lock, you won’t be able to contest control of the structure for at least 2 minutes, and up to 4 minutes (the remainder of your current cycle, then the warmup cycle after the new activation).

And in one fell stroke, Fozzie has completely neutered Trollceptors. If you break lock on the structure, you're not getting any more progress for several minutes. If you bugger off as soon as you see someone on scan, one dude in a combat interceptor can effectively chase off any number of Trollceptors. Hell, Hero Keres and Hero Maulus and Hero Griffin and... well, anything small, fast, with a long lock range and any damp / ECM module - will be able to single handedly save dozens of systems just by warping on grid, breaking the Trollceptor's lock, and moving on to the next.

So, no longer any reason to nerf Trollceptors, since the solution is simple, achievable, scalable, and viable.

Can we move on to other link balance issues now?


Pretty much this, which is why I asked. I expected to be told we would have to wait for the current cycle to complete. But having to go through a whole 'nother warm-up cycle, that's pretty funny and I think will make damps surprisingly effective against even small to medium fleets considering the cycle time on damps is 10 seconds.

edit: thx CCP Fozzie.

http://youtu.be/YVkUvmDQ3HY
FT Diomedes
The Graduates
#1443 - 2015-03-12 14:58:28 UTC
EvilweaselFinance wrote:
Lena Lazair wrote:

Not only is this important, it's fundamental. However, the idea that ANY large bloc would be able to refrain from attacking each other once trollsov goes live is simply laughable. The decision will no longer be in the hands of bloc leaders because it will no longer be relegated to a relatively small group of cap pilots flying ships very few people can afford to individually lose without SRP/alliance support.

i see we're in the "complete fanfiction from people who have never set foot in null" phase of the thread


As mentioned, you have no clue how much people who live in null sec have to work together. If someone tells me I can lead roaming gangs and hunt ratters, but not attack strategic objectives, then I am going to listen if I want to stay in my corporation or alliance.

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

Veskrashen
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#1444 - 2015-03-12 14:58:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Veskrashen
Aralyn Cormallen wrote:
Veskrashen wrote:
"Optimal" and "Viable" are two different things.

Optimal would be if a kitey Link boat could always win, never be caught, and never be countered. That the only way to stop him would be to either bring your own kitey stuff or sit at zero with a defensive link and wait for him to get bored.

Neither solution constitutes controlling the grid, and can't be classed as a fight under any interpretation.
Quote:
That's not the case here, however, now that we know how losing link works - you have to wait for your current cycle to finish, then spend another cycle reconnecting before you begin making any progress towards capture. That means that there are a multitude of counters to a kiting comp that do not rely on bringing your own kiting comp.

Ah, this would be the ECM solution. Another solution that is centred on the concept of not fighting, and not controlling the grid, just competing for who wants to not contest the grid longest.

I would disagree. You've got pilots using offensive modules on each other, that's a fight. The fact that one of them may choose not to attempt to kill the other because he's in a pure evasion fit just means that the fight ends without anyone getting a KM. In fact, the ECM / damp boat will be able to recap the structure since his link isn't being interrupted by the Trollceptor - he is controlling the field by preventing the Trollceptor from engaging on his terms. Should the Trollceptor bugger off somewhere else, he's still controlling the grid and won the fight.

Aralyn Cormallen wrote:
Why wouldn't they be viable? If you are the faster moving, longer ranged fleet in the engagement, why are you trying to activate a sov-laser when you have an enemy on the field? After all, the enemy can't activate a link since you will immediately alpha it off the field before it completes its preperation cycle, so why should you be allowed to freely link away when the brawling comp you are fighting cannot? If you were allowed to activate your link whilst maintaining your speed and range advantage, then you could freely capture without ever engaging the enemy (barring sniping every e-link that activates or ecm boat that shows up). The brawling comp would be the one not viable, the kiter indeed would be optimal.

Ultimately, the purpose of the e-link is that the user must be holding the grid. Not kiting around the edge out of range ignoring the enemy, and not sitting in a invulnerable spider-tank at 0 . CCP have removed the ability for close-range and capital comps to perform the latter, which is where their advantage lays, but has yet to ensure kitey and frigate comps cant perform the former, where their advantage lays. The options to even up the playing field is to either remove the kiters ability to kite while linking, or return the brawlers ability to tank the kiters damage while linking - and heres a hint, the second option is by far the worst of the two.

EDIT: Once this disparity is balanced out, I'd be willing to suggest that an activated e-link makes users immune to ewar effects, after all, if they are slowed and can't warp already, the only reason to ewar them is to ecm troll, which is just as silly as evasion trolling, and is stupid for all the same reasons, these mechanics should be encouraging fights, not stupid gimmick-plays to annoy and frustrate.

You're thinking in terms of fleets, not solo work or small gang vs. larger gang. The idea that you can just volley any Link ship off the field with a kiting fleet then stop to turn on your Entosis Link doesn't apply to small gang / solo engagements. Preventing an entire subset of fleet comps - long range / high speed / kiting ones specifically - from using Entosis Links breaks the entire point of CCP's goal of ensuring that ALL fleet comps are still viable to be used with Entosis Links. You're turning it back into an N+1 DPS race, which isn't at all what CCP is intending with this new system.

I have yet to see a cogent reason why kiting doctrines should be prevented from using an Entosis Link without penalty, other than the fact that they'd be hard to catch and kill. Since that's not even remotely the only counter to such doctrines, I don't see that as an overwhelming counterargument.

And you're definitely not taking into account attrition strategies for controlling a grid, or the advantage those give to a prepared defender.

We Gallente have a saying: "CCP created the Gallente Militia to train the Fighters..."
Borachon
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#1445 - 2015-03-12 15:07:25 UTC
Veskrashen wrote:

Can we move on to other link balance issues now?


The biggest balance issue with Entosis links, I think, is that their current design doesn't reflect the engagement ranges and profiles that ships are balanced around. In particular, having two link range profiles (very short or very long) that can be fit on any ship interacts poorly with ship balancing and any meta. Consider long range beam laser fits, specifically optimal-bonused laser hulls with aurora and a tracking computer scripted for optimal range. Here's their engagement ranges:

  • Retribution: 49km optimal + falloff
  • Confessor in sharpshooter mode: 55km optimal + falloff
  • Zealot: 105km optimal + falloff
  • Tachyon Apoc: 220km optimal + falloff


For entosis links to reflect "grid control" and not adversely impact ship meta, their ranges need to match these envelopes on these ships sizes. If an apoc cannot fit entosis links that are a significant fraction of their long engagement range, they can have grid control and still not be able to apply entosis links to a structure. Conversely, if small ships can fit links with a range much longer than their engagement range, they will be able to apply entosis links even when they don't have any real impact on the grid. Big picture, that's why I think it's important to have entosis links that match the ranges of appropriately sized weapons and can only be fit to the appropriately sized ships.

One way to do this would be to have S/M/L-sized links; I could imagine this causing difficulties to the drifter drop table, however. Another option would be to buff T1 link range to 50km, so it covers long range frigates and medium range cruisers, allowing the T2 link to be fit only on BC-sized and above ships, and dropping its range slightly to 200km or so.
Celesae
Clan Shadow Wolf
Tactical Narcotics Team
#1446 - 2015-03-12 15:19:59 UTC  |  Edited by: Celesae
CCP Fozzie wrote:
You don't need to be in any specific system to receive the notification in our current plan.

...

Then once that first cycle is complete you begin capturing. Capture time at this point depends on the occupancy defense bonus of the system, but will always take at least 5 minutes (which is two and a half cycles for the T2 module and one for the T1 module). The cycle speed of the module doesn't have any impact on the speed at which the actual capture completes.


So, combine that with your plans to not alert the alliance members until after the "warmup" cycle has completed, and your stated intent to remove local intel...

Alliances won't know anyone is even there or trying to capture a target until they have 5 minutes or less to respond - with the warp speed nerfs, a ratter/miner literally won't have the time necessary to respond by docking up, reship, and warp to the spot to attempt to defend, unless the system already has very high indecies - especially if the system under attack is not the one you're currently in, making it a problem for even a small constellation of sov ownership.

Does this not bring up the point that maybe the alliances should be notified as soon as the entosis link goes live?

In "low-use" systems, particularly freshly-obtained systems, this will require someone to be sitting, spread out (and likely alone) to keep eyes on each of the targets 4 x 7 (4 hrs a day, 7 days a week) - how is this, in ANY way, more fun than shooting a SBU? Even a small group of torp bombers can kill an SBU in drastically less time and not required to be present every. Single. Day.

The timers don't get much better until the indecies are pretty high - how is your team prepared to respond if large swathes of null sov becomes a wasteland of unwanted "flip/flop systems"? I want to know what the back-out/fallback plan is, or if you even have one?


I like the principle of the ideas, but the system is flawed. No matter how this is pitched, it just sounds like a massive chore without much reward, and definitely not a fun one unless someone actually does come by your "post" to make attempt on it. Have you ever done guard duty? I have, and It really, really sucks - there isn't a single successful game title out there that I can think of that revolves around guard duty.
Lena Lazair
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#1447 - 2015-03-12 15:20:37 UTC
Sentient Blade wrote:
My question is, can multiple people activate Entosis at once?

With the inability to receive remote reps, and assuming the ceptor problem has a solution in terms of fitting limitations, wont major battles have their Entosis links fitted to brick-tanked subcapitals?

Now from what I've read, the aim is to have grid control be the determining factor, but isn't that going to be limited in that even if you have a thousand people on grid protecting a triple-plated high-grade-slaved abaddon, a ninja hit-and-run attack with bombers (or my likely strategy would probably be sniper tornados sitting on the edge of grid) then the link is going to get toasted, even though control of the grid could quite reasonably be considered controlled by someone else.


Been stated numerous places that yes, multiple e-links can be activated at once from the same "side". So losing a single BS to a bomber run shouldn't be a problem for a reasonably serious attacking force; even at 25k max range that's a lot of room to spread out multiple e-link ships, nevermind the 250km option. That said, expect brick tanked T3's, not BS's, for exactly this reason. Well, with fatigue and local tank bonuses coupled to cruiser sized sigs, expect DST's actually.

As to "what is grid control", yeah... that's come up many times. I'm not in the camp that would call what you describe "grid control". Being the brawlers sitting at 0 doesn't mean you are in control of the grid if you can still be picked off by a mobile sniper fleet. It just means you are still in the middle of fighting for that grid and happen to be using a tactic that favors not moving much :)

All the usual anti-sniper stuff will be necessary for ACTUAL grid control that isn't particularly susceptible to harrying. Just being the big fleet no one can land at 0 to brawl with is not enough and is not grid control in this context, which I think is intentional. You don't necessarily need to be able to force the harrying fleet into an engagement, but you should be able to make it sufficiently dangerous for them to be on grid long enough to apply damage to even a single e-link ship that there is no way they are going to win a war of attrition against your e-link fleet within the, at most, 40 minute timer.
Lena Lazair
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#1448 - 2015-03-12 15:27:11 UTC  |  Edited by: Lena Lazair
Celesae wrote:
Alliances won't know anyone is even there or trying to capture a target until they have 5 minutes or less to respond - with the warp speed nerfs, a ratter/miner literally won't have the time necessary to respond by docking up, reship, and warp to the spot to attempt to defend, unless the system already has very high indecies - especially if the system under attack is not the one you're currently in, making it a problem for even a small constellation of sov ownership.


If you do not have an active e-link defender ship in each system every day for your 4 hour window, how can it be argued that you do (or should) own sov in that system? Better the system reflect its TRUE state of "not actually owned by anyone, empty most of the time anyway". EDIT: Further reinforced by the fact that if you only have 5 minutes to respond at this point, it's a 0 indice system already with a 10 minute capture timer, meaning yeah it really was VERY empty.

There seems to be a fear that under the new system, a vast majority of null systems won't have any established sov. But that's a GOOD thing. Null is mostly empty anyway; you can already spend a LOT of time in someone's sov space without ever seeing a single one of their members. Better the sov map correctly reflects that fact.

The ONLY practical reason this is a concern at ALL is the current need for upgraded IHUBs in every system under Bob in order to make null AFK ratting profitable enough to pay for the captials needed to keep the MAB capital race status quo. But there are so many things wrong in that sentence already that I'm not really concerned the majority of these IHUBs are going to vanish under Fozziesov even IF CCP doesn't get around to fixing null income balance in this pass.
Veskrashen
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#1449 - 2015-03-12 15:32:45 UTC
Borachon wrote:
Veskrashen wrote:

Can we move on to other link balance issues now?


The biggest balance issue with Entosis links, I think, is that their current design doesn't reflect the engagement ranges and profiles that ships are balanced around. In particular, having two link range profiles (very short or very long) that can be fit on any ship interacts poorly with ship balancing and any meta. Consider long range beam laser fits, specifically optimal-bonused laser hulls with aurora and a tracking computer scripted for optimal range. Here's their engagement ranges:

  • Retribution: 49km optimal + falloff
  • Confessor in sharpshooter mode: 55km optimal + falloff
  • Zealot: 105km optimal + falloff
  • Tachyon Apoc: 220km optimal + falloff


For entosis links to reflect "grid control" and not adversely impact ship meta, their ranges need to match these envelopes on these ships sizes. If an apoc cannot fit entosis links that are a significant fraction of their long engagement range, they can have grid control and still not be able to apply entosis links to a structure. Conversely, if small ships can fit links with a range much longer than their engagement range, they will be able to apply entosis links even when they don't have any real impact on the grid. Big picture, that's why I think it's important to have entosis links that match the ranges of appropriately sized weapons and can only be fit to the appropriately sized ships.

One way to do this would be to have S/M/L-sized links; I could imagine this causing difficulties to the drifter drop table, however. Another option would be to buff T1 link range to 50km, so it covers long range frigates and medium range cruisers, allowing the T2 link to be fit only on BC-sized and above ships, and dropping its range slightly to 200km or so.

Good points, though I think you need to use the Caldari hulls instead of the Amarr ones as the basis for comparioson. Caldari railgun platforms reach out to 100km on AFs and T1 Dessies, while cruiser hulls can engage out past 200km+ very easily. This would mean that even if you implement sized Entosis Links (which I personally think is a horrible idea) you'd still need to have 250km link range available for cruiser hulls. Given you can fit cruiser sized modules on frigates and dessies as it is, that would mean you'd still be able to get 250km links on a frigate / destroyer sized platform. Thus, aside from the issues of CCP not wanting to gate links to certain hull sizes, I don't think it'd work as you can Frankenstein fit them to smaller hulls.

I believe extending the range of the shortest range module out to 50km isn't going to cause many balance issues - any non-AB brawling doctrine will likely be able to impact at least that large of an engagement range. And you'll still need to keep a long range option with roughly a 200-250km link range to allow for kiting and sniping doctrines. I think giving the longer cycle time to the longer ranged link makes sense, as kiting generally places you at less risk than brawling, and therefore needs to be balanced out by a longer exposure time on grid.

We Gallente have a saying: "CCP created the Gallente Militia to train the Fighters..."
Celesae
Clan Shadow Wolf
Tactical Narcotics Team
#1450 - 2015-03-12 15:39:57 UTC
Lena Lazair wrote:
If you do not have an active e-link defender ship in each system every day for your 4 hour window, how can it be argued that you do (or should) own sov in that system? Better the system reflect its TRUE state of "not actually owned by anyone, empty most of the time anyway".


I directed my concern toward freshly-captured systems, specifically, to include systems with even moderate levels - you do know how the indecies work? It takes significant amounts of time and man hours to get those levels up.

So, addressing your first sentence, "emerging gameplay" is to sit on guard duty for 4 hours? And that's... fun? I illustrated my point with actual military guard duty experience. It is mind-numbing boring, and not a task I wish to ever repeat. Guard Duty Online, even if only for 4 hours a day, is not a "game" that many will want to play.

You also ignored my point that the people trying to actively raise those indecies will struggle to deal with this because they'll be either stuck on guard duty or not have enough time due to the literal amounts of time it would take to reship and respond. This does not favor the "little guy" (i.e.: small alliances), not one bit.
Eli Apol
Definitely a nullsec alt
#1451 - 2015-03-12 15:41:46 UTC
Veskrashen wrote:
I think giving the longer cycle time to the longer ranged link makes sense, as kiting generally places you at less risk than brawling, and therefore needs to be balanced out by a longer exposure time on grid.

I like that +1

Was about to respond with kinda the same argument about the range versus hull size argument but from the opposite direction - a completely gimpfit retribution (dual sebos w/ scripts, no propmod) manages only 160km locking range. There's already limitations on how far the smaller hulls can use the module out to so I'd propose a % targetting range decrease that applies uniformly to every hull if the module is onlined rather than adding extra modules for different hulls.

I guess it's the same end result though and perhaps multiple modules might enable greater tweakability from CCP to combat horror doctrines that try to exploit the mechanics.

but what would I know, I'm just a salvager
Veskrashen
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#1452 - 2015-03-12 15:50:58 UTC
Eli Apol wrote:
I guess it's the same end result though and perhaps multiple modules might enable greater tweakability from CCP to combat horror doctrines that try to exploit the mechanics.

I really really don't think it's necessary to limit the performance of the module by hull size. Give it one set of stats and be done with it. Make sure both the short and long range - T1/T2 - fit on all hull sizes without forcing fitting chices that invalidate whole swathes of fleet / solo doctrines.

Then let players do what players do best - find ways to screw with each other using the new tools.

There's obvious issues that need to be balanced out with extreme range / extreme speed doctrines, of course. Noone's disputing that. Since the Entosis Link keeps you on grid by disabling your ability to warp, however, a lot of those concerns just boil down to how to deal with it while it's on grid. There's already multiple solutions for that, though of course your engagement window - time-wise - is an important variable.

I think the vast majority of concerns can be allayed by forcing the longer cycle time on the longer ranged link. If there's something truly truly egregious that can't be fixed with a T1 damp boat or having 5 minutes to run something down and murder it, then we'd need to sort out some new solutions.

We Gallente have a saying: "CCP created the Gallente Militia to train the Fighters..."
Dersen Lowery
The Scope
#1453 - 2015-03-12 15:59:39 UTC
Just spitballing, but what if the T2 module had 100km range, but 250km overheated? That would make max-range trolling something you only do if you have grid control, or if you don't mind burning through a lot of expensive nanite paste.

Proud founder and member of the Belligerent Desirables.

I voted in CSM X!
xttz
GSF Logistics and Posting Reserves
Goonswarm Federation
#1454 - 2015-03-12 16:09:27 UTC
Veskrashen wrote:
Want to make Trollceptors hard to use? Make sure the cap drain on T2 links is significant, so it'll be a complete pain to run an MWD and Link and still be cap stable.

Cap use can't be a balancing factor on a module with a cycle time of several minutes. Either the activation cost is low enough for a frigate to activate, and then fully recharge its cap before the next cycle, or the activation cost is larger than the typical capacitor size and cannot be activated at all.


Dersen Lowery wrote:
Just spitballing, but what if the T2 module had 100km range, but 250km overheated? That would make max-range trolling something you only do if you have grid control, or if you don't mind burning through a lot of expensive nanite paste.


Again, the long cycle time would ensure the module virtually always burns out before overheat can be switched off. At best you'd squeeze 1-2 cycles out before breaking the mod.
Arrendis
TK Corp
#1455 - 2015-03-12 16:14:40 UTC
SilentAsTheGrave wrote:
This may have backfired on you. Lol

I'm several pages in and out of all the goon posts, all but one is very optimistic of the Dominion sov. Everyone from mittens to vile rat and some other known goon leaders were very optimistic. Shadoo's post was cautious.

Thanks for the link regardless. Blink


You may have misunderstood.

Typically, it's not the goons who think something will be terrible for goons. Having an organization that's well, highly organized allows for adaptation, and we have the manpower to enact whatever changes we decide we need to make.

Instead, it's everyone else - usually those with no nullsec experience being the most enthusiastic - who insist 'look! goon tears! they know this will destroy them!'. Most of the time that's because, as with the potential trollceptors have against everyone if unleashed by the thousands, we've spotted something we think should be reworked in order to get better overall results, and we're not shy about saying so.

We know we'll be fine. Even at its worst, this sov change won't do a lot to hurt us. But everyone rejoicing in 'sweet goon tears' has enjoyed those 'tears' before - as recently as pre-Phoebe, many of the same folks insisted losing the ability to jump around New Eden at will would make it impossible for the CFC to defend both Venal and Fountain. Which we then proceeded to do.

We'll adapt. We're good at it.
Veskrashen
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#1456 - 2015-03-12 16:18:59 UTC
xttz wrote:
Veskrashen wrote:
Want to make Trollceptors hard to use? Make sure the cap drain on T2 links is significant, so it'll be a complete pain to run an MWD and Link and still be cap stable.

Cap use can't be a balancing factor on a module with a cycle time of several minutes. Either the activation cost is low enough for a frigate to activate, and then fully recharge its cap before the next cycle, or the activation cost is larger than the typical capacitor size and cannot be activated at all.


Dersen Lowery wrote:
Just spitballing, but what if the T2 module had 100km range, but 250km overheated? That would make max-range trolling something you only do if you have grid control, or if you don't mind burning through a lot of expensive nanite paste.


Again, the long cycle time would ensure the module virtually always burns out before overheat can be switched off. At best you'd squeeze 1-2 cycles out before breaking the mod.

Good points.

Your thoughts on long cycle time for the long range module as a balancing factor?

We Gallente have a saying: "CCP created the Gallente Militia to train the Fighters..."
Borachon
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#1457 - 2015-03-12 16:28:58 UTC
Veskrashen wrote:

Your thoughts on long cycle time for the long range module as a balancing factor?


It's going to make sniper doctrines even more absurdly vulnerable to bombers and warpins. As it is, they rely on positioning through MJDing and warping; with a short cycle on a long range link, they can MJD out once and and wait out their short entosis timer to warp off and reposition before the enemy can warp in on them again. With a long timer on long-range entosis links, though, I expect sniper doctrines would simply be completely infeasible.
Milton Middleson
Rifterlings
#1458 - 2015-03-12 16:35:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Milton Middleson
I'm still pretty firmly convinced that the anxiety over interceptors is overblown. One aspect that does strike me as off is the cycle time on the T2 link. You not only get vastly superior range to the T1 module (fair enough - that's necessary for long-ranged doctrines to function), but you also get a markedly shorter cycle time. That seems off. The tradeoff for not needing to commit to sitting on the button ought to be committing to a longer cycle time (let's arbitrarily say 10 minutes). That both means that low-commitment doctrines take longer to actually flip the point (not hugely longer, but it gives more time for someone to notice and respond), and their link ships are stuff for longer.
Dersen Lowery
The Scope
#1459 - 2015-03-12 16:40:02 UTC
xttz wrote:
Dersen Lowery wrote:
Just spitballing, but what if the T2 module had 100km range, but 250km overheated? That would make max-range trolling something you only do if you have grid control, or if you don't mind burning through a lot of expensive nanite paste.


Again, the long cycle time would ensure the module virtually always burns out before overheat can be switched off. At best you'd squeeze 1-2 cycles out before breaking the mod.


Burnout after 1-2 cycles would be the whole point: either you have grid control and it's no big deal, or you don't and it is. But you can't just LOL around for 4 hours in a trollceptor at 250km without a significant cargo of nanite paste.

Proud founder and member of the Belligerent Desirables.

I voted in CSM X!
xttz
GSF Logistics and Posting Reserves
Goonswarm Federation
#1460 - 2015-03-12 16:45:20 UTC
Veskrashen wrote:
Good points.

Your thoughts on long cycle time for the long range module as a balancing factor?


If CCP are planning on having a role penalty for capital ships which increases the cycle time just for them, it's going to get exponentially worse on the T2 version - exactly the version they should be using. This heavily discourages use of capital ships in sov warfare in general. Slow, expensive ships already have an increased risk of use over smaller ones due to their existing mobility.

I think the only fair way is to have sized versions of the entosis link, with appropriate ranges:

Frigates 25-50k
Cruisers 50-100k
Battleships 100-200k
Capitals 150-250k