These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#1621 - 2015-03-15 22:07:50 UTC
davet517 wrote:
baltec1 wrote:

We have been telling you we will deploy these things by the hundreds to thousands in small gangs.


Against whom? This isn't high-sec ganking. There isn't anyone out there that you can do this to who can't do it back. And then there are all those (NPC and low-sec entities) for whom you are a target, while they are not.

I don't really think you're complaining about this because you want CCP to save Eve from you.

Yes, they will end our 0.0 nightmare.

It's exactly as hoped for in ccp's 0.0 vision.

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 ?
Aurumfault Shiptoaster
Blood Oath Foundation
#1622 - 2015-03-15 23:41:31 UTC
SoCal Stoli Rotsuda wrote:
SilentAsTheGrave wrote:
Unless I missed something; doing a daily Entosis Link on your sov system for two minutes will not protect it for the next 24 hours. Fozzie also stated that there will be a notification alliance wide after the warm up period has ended and the cycle begins on the sov thing.


I think that the notification goes out if someone OTHER than the owner tries to get a link on the structure.

I still think, based on what's been put out so far, that if the OWNER activates a link on a structure, a successful link "activates and protects" the structure, which takes it out of vulnerability mode.

Does anyone have anything from the devs to suggest otherwise? It would seem to be a key issue, because a LOT of the discussions about "camping for four hours" would be pointless if this is the case.


If a "successful defense" protects the structure until the next vulnerability window, people can, and will, "attack" their own structures with out of alliance alts to get guaranteed protection. Somewhat like defensive SBUs but even less fun.
FT Diomedes
The Graduates
#1623 - 2015-03-16 00:23:08 UTC  |  Edited by: FT Diomedes
SoCal Stoli Rotsuda wrote:
SilentAsTheGrave wrote:
Unless I missed something; doing a daily Entosis Link on your sov system for two minutes will not protect it for the next 24 hours. Fozzie also stated that there will be a notification alliance wide after the warm up period has ended and the cycle begins on the sov thing.


I think that the notification goes out if someone OTHER than the owner tries to get a link on the structure.

I still think, based on what's been put out so far, that if the OWNER activates a link on a structure, a successful link "activates and protects" the structure, which takes it out of vulnerability mode.

Does anyone have anything from the devs to suggest otherwise? It would seem to be a key issue, because a LOT of the discussions about "camping for four hours" would be pointless if this is the case.


I cannot quote anyone on this, but I have not seen any indications that you can preemptively reinforce your own structures every day.

PS - It would be very stupid if you could preemptively reinforce your own system.

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

Falin Whalen
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#1624 - 2015-03-16 01:36:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Falin Whalen
FT Diomedes wrote:
SoCal Stoli Rotsuda wrote:
SilentAsTheGrave wrote:
Unless I missed something; doing a daily Entosis Link on your sov system for two minutes will not protect it for the next 24 hours. Fozzie also stated that there will be a notification alliance wide after the warm up period has ended and the cycle begins on the sov thing.


I think that the notification goes out if someone OTHER than the owner tries to get a link on the structure.

I still think, based on what's been put out so far, that if the OWNER activates a link on a structure, a successful link "activates and protects" the structure, which takes it out of vulnerability mode.

Does anyone have anything from the devs to suggest otherwise? It would seem to be a key issue, because a LOT of the discussions about "camping for four hours" would be pointless if this is the case.


I cannot quote anyone on this, but I have not seen any indications that you can preemptively reinforce your own structures every day.

PS - It would be very stupid if you could preemptively reinforce your own system.

Remember this is the company that thought that we wouldn't defensively SBU our own systems, and if attacked wouldn't just go out to one of our own SBUs and turn it off, thereby forcing the fight to end until the attackers got another anchored, onlined, having to wait three hours for the system to become vulnerable again.

"it's only because of their stupidity that they're able to be so sure of themselves." The Trial - Franz Kafka 
Amyclas Amatin
SUNDERING
Goonswarm Federation
#1625 - 2015-03-16 02:28:21 UTC
Remember that no matter how unfun things become for the players, daddy will make us do it.

And we will, because we love our family very very much. More than we actually love the game itself.

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?"
Jenshae Chiroptera
#1626 - 2015-03-16 03:15:25 UTC
Gorski Car wrote:
There are so many things you can do to counter trollceptors I cant help but think that this is a vocal minority overreacting and creating doomsday scenarios.

Quote:
Verge of Collapse [CRIT]
This alliance is currently not claiming any systems.

CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids

Not even once

EVE is becoming shallow and puerile; it will satisfy neither the veteran nor the "WoW" type crowd in the transition.
Veskrashen
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#1627 - 2015-03-16 03:54:09 UTC
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:
SOV is stagnant because Low Sec is not the next step from High Sec and a viable place to grow alliances to the point they can challenge Null alliances.

Hint: Folks in lowsec generally want little to nothing to do with owning sov, see it as it's own endgame, and don't have any desire to be a place to grow more nullbears.

We Gallente have a saying: "CCP created the Gallente Militia to train the Fighters..."
Nasar Vyron
S0utherN Comfort
#1628 - 2015-03-16 04:51:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Nasar Vyron
-Should not be able to have a cloak and this mod on the same ship ever, you will never convince anyone otherwise that this is a valid tactic given the current state of cloaks and the power they have over indices.

-For that same reason Interceptors and all cov ops/recons cannot be allowed to use the Entosis Link- removes the chance of trolling sov which is a very serious mechanic. While it should be vulnerable, it should not be able to be trolled by nullified/covert cloak mechanics which are next to impossible to catch unless they are careless. Expecting players to combat probe all their systems to catch a possible combat recon is just as unreasonable.

-Range should be hull specific,. i.e. larger ships, larger range.
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#1629 - 2015-03-16 06:58:37 UTC
Amyclas Amatin wrote:
Remember that no matter how unfun things become for the players, daddy will make us do it.

And we will, because we love our family very very much. More than we actually love the game itself.

... daddy?

So it's come down to this...

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 ?
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#1630 - 2015-03-16 07:04:31 UTC
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:
Gorski Car wrote:
There are so many things you can do to counter trollceptors I cant help but think that this is a vocal minority overreacting and creating doomsday scenarios.

Quote:
Verge of Collapse [CRIT]
This alliance is currently not claiming any systems.

Yes, it seems they can tear apart people's tender sov while not having any sov to lose.

These are the people who will end our 0.0 nightmare.

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 ?
Lena Lazair
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#1631 - 2015-03-16 07:59:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Lena Lazair
SoCal Stoli Rotsuda wrote:
SilentAsTheGrave wrote:
Unless I missed something; doing a daily Entosis Link on your sov system for two minutes will not protect it for the next 24 hours. Fozzie also stated that there will be a notification alliance wide after the warm up period has ended and the cycle begins on the sov thing.


I think that the notification goes out if someone OTHER than the owner tries to get a link on the structure.

I still think, based on what's been put out so far, that if the OWNER activates a link on a structure, a successful link "activates and protects" the structure, which takes it out of vulnerability mode.

Does anyone have anything from the devs to suggest otherwise? It would seem to be a key issue, because a LOT of the discussions about "camping for four hours" would be pointless if this is the case.


If an offensive (non-alliance) e-link runs a full 10 to 40 minutes on the structure during the vulnerability window, uncontested, the structure reinforces. A defensive e-link merely "contests" the offensive e-link, preventing this capture timer from ticking down (it is not 100% clear from the explanations if this pauses the capture timer, or if it completely resets it; the flow chart says capture progress is "paused" though, so assuming that).

So no, you cannot defend just once and then have it remain safe for the next 24 hours. Defensive e-links don't "do" anything to the structure; they don't change its state, affect its vulnerability, or reinforce it. As described, all they do is prevent the capture timer from progressing for any offensive e-links that are active on the same structure at the same time.

EDIT: Just to clarify, defensive e-links DO change structure state for new TCU/IHUB's that still need to be activated. But absolutely nothing in the blog suggests defensive e-links would push existing, owned, online structures into a capture/reinforce/invulnerable state. The only relevant language in the blog is in the edge-case of the vulnerability window ending, where a defensive e-link's effect on the structure says it is "returned to full owner control". This strongly suggests it would go back to the "idle" state in the diagram.

Defensive reinforcement would potentially be possible, but that means you'd have to come back and win the control node contest a few days later; a process which takes time and also leaves the structure vulnerable to anyone who shows up to contest it in a subcap fleet. That said, if you win that control node contest, the structure IS invulnerable until the next day.

So depending on the level of troll-y behavior in your area, it's definitely possible it could make sense to defensively reinforce things. Day 1; reinforce stuff yourself first thing, peace and quiet remainder of vulnerability window. Day 2; peace and quiet all window (structures still reinforced). Day 3; win the control node contest yourself and peace and quiet remainder of vulnerability window as all those structures are invulnerable. EDIT: Just to be clear, I personally think this would be a horrible trade-off so I don't expect to see this mechanic used (I hope). You are talking 110 to 140 pilot-minutes PER STRUCTURE for barely more than a single 4hr quiet window. Plus if you do this regularly it would become trivial for an opponent to launch a surprise offensive during one of your control node contests, leaving you a scant 10 to 40 minutes to muster a defensive control node fleet rather than the 2+ days you'd normally have.

Also, none of this aplies to station services, which can be disabled at any time (or re-enabled with a defensive e-link).
davet517
Raata Invicti
#1632 - 2015-03-16 10:37:43 UTC
Alavaria Fera wrote:

Well we've had loads of people wanting to end our 0.0 dream but they don't have one themselves.


You're not the screw with the plans of others for the lolz people anymore? When did this happen? More than any other, your alliance legitimized that play style. People don't need a dream beyond lolz to have fun, right?
Yroc Jannseen
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#1633 - 2015-03-16 11:47:24 UTC
Alavaria Fera wrote:
Amyclas Amatin wrote:
Remember that no matter how unfun things become for the players, daddy will make us do it.

And we will, because we love our family very very much. More than we actually love the game itself.

... daddy?

So it's come down to this...


We've been exposed. The truth about goonswarm has been revealed. GSF is not an internet spaceship guild, but a sadomasochistic sex cult that uses Eve Online as punishment when subs disobey.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#1634 - 2015-03-16 12:05:05 UTC
davet517 wrote:
baltec1 wrote:

We have been telling you we will deploy these things by the hundreds to thousands in small gangs.


Against whom? This isn't high-sec ganking. There isn't anyone out there that you can do this to who can't do it back. And then there are all those (NPC and low-sec entities) for whom you are a target, while they are not.

I don't really think you're complaining about this because you want CCP to save Eve from you.



We can deploy 7 fleets, have supers on standby, have a home defence force, highsec arm, WH group and a smattering of smaller groups doing their own thing.

We will be fine, this tool is nightmare for everyone else as it fits perfectly in with the way we currently fight our wars. The problem people such as yourself have here is that you have never fought a war in sov null. You have no idea just how horrible a war with us can be. We are trying to make sov mk 3 goonproof.
Jenn aSide
Soul Machines
The Initiative.
#1635 - 2015-03-16 14:45:41 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
We are trying to make sov mk 3 goonproof.


People can't understand what you are doing because they can't see past their prejudices, hate and jealousy of your particular group. I hold no such bias, I just shoot y'all (like im gonna shoot the 2 goons who suicide ganked my implant-less pod last week, Space-Vengeance will be mine!).

They don't see you as people, so they don't understand that you want a fun game experience too, and one where it's so easy to use numbers to just lolRoll over everyone (reinforcing stuff and making the targets fleet up to defend 5 nodes every 16 seconds) is only entertaining for about 5 minutes then it turns tedious.

Personally, I dislike the entire system because it demonstrates that CCP doesn't understand something fundamental about null players (that kind of small gang tap tap chase'em stuff is low sec and maybe npc null sec, lots of null players play for the big slow ships and organized fleet conflict which is fundamentally different), but after June I'll get to explain this flaw to CCP over and over again by linking this discussion and a few others unless they pull a Greyscale and leave before i can pull the "what did I tell ya?" trigger Twisted
Blastil
Aideron Robotics
Aideron Robotics.
#1636 - 2015-03-16 15:34:45 UTC
has anyone considered the possiblity of using scripts to allow people to choose what kind of engagement they will have, but that this will impose some kind of restriction on your Entosis link?

It could for example be like a sensor damp, where you choose between scan res and range.

It could work something like this:

Entrenchment Script: Exchanges range for speed, causing the entosis linking ship to be a long-range, but slow moving target.
Skirmish Script: Exchanges speed for range, forcing your ship into a closer range engagement but with minimal or no speed penalty.
No Script: Gives a mixture of both speed loss and range.

This lets you certainly have trollceptors, but only if you're willing to sit still at long range, or be really fast, but within a reasonable engagement range (20-40 KM sounds good to me). It also lets you decide to use plenty of reasonable strategies, and even be flexible in deployment without allowing game breaking mechanics. But generally speaking I would like the Entosis link to be a commitment, kind of like a warp disruption sphere. I think that if you want it to be a fighting mechanic, you need to make the link be like any of the other commitment mechanics. Once that link goes hot, you have to sit out the timer, and wait for whatever happens to happen.
Speedkermit Damo
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#1637 - 2015-03-16 16:08:12 UTC
Dras Malar wrote:

Fozzie says people are making, and I quote, "****-tons" of isk in ratting anomalies, therefore, everthing is fine.


Come on now, hands up everyone that's making tons of isk ratting in nullsec, where are you all?

Botters don't count Fozzie.

Protect me from knowing what I don't need to know. Protect me from even knowing that there are things to know that I don't know. Protect me from knowing that I decided not to know about the things that I decided not to know about. Amen.
davet517
Raata Invicti
#1638 - 2015-03-16 16:17:44 UTC
baltec1 wrote:

We will be fine, this tool is nightmare for everyone else as it fits perfectly in with the way we currently fight our wars. The problem people such as yourself have here is that you have never fought a war in sov null. You have no idea just how horrible a war with us can be. We are trying to make sov mk 3 goonproof.


Aw, young lad. I actually fought a sov war with your alliance back when it was run by a guy named Remedial and it was serving as lackeys for the Russians flying swarms of t-1 cruisers whose only real purpose was to induce lag if things weren't going their way, and I've been in many sov wars before and since.

You're trying to do no such thing. You're used to being the ones surfing the meta-game to bring grief and tears to whomever you can. This hits you where you live, and turns the tables a bit, and you don't like it. As a sov holder you're a stationary target for those who don't really care about your sov, but would dearly love to make you miserable in it. It goes around and it comes around. Looks like its coming around, unless you can get CCP to cave.
Yroc Jannseen
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#1639 - 2015-03-16 16:18:37 UTC
Blastil wrote:
has anyone considered the possiblity of using scripts to allow people to choose what kind of engagement they will have, but that this will impose some kind of restriction on your Entosis link?

It could for example be like a sensor damp, where you choose between scan res and range.

It could work something like this:

Entrenchment Script: Exchanges range for speed, causing the entosis linking ship to be a long-range, but slow moving target.
Skirmish Script: Exchanges speed for range, forcing your ship into a closer range engagement but with minimal or no speed penalty.
No Script: Gives a mixture of both speed loss and range.

This lets you certainly have trollceptors, but only if you're willing to sit still at long range, or be really fast, but within a reasonable engagement range (20-40 KM sounds good to me). It also lets you decide to use plenty of reasonable strategies, and even be flexible in deployment without allowing game breaking mechanics. But generally speaking I would like the Entosis link to be a commitment, kind of like a warp disruption sphere. I think that if you want it to be a fighting mechanic, you need to make the link be like any of the other commitment mechanics. Once that link goes hot, you have to sit out the timer, and wait for whatever happens to happen.


Someone else did bring up scripts, but not in this exact way I believe.

I think this is interesting, exact numbers of course might be off, but something along these lines does add choice and flexibility. I don't think this solves trollceptors. Activating the module should have a base speed penalty or upper speed limit that scripts then work on top of.
Jenn aSide
Soul Machines
The Initiative.
#1640 - 2015-03-16 16:26:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Jenn aSide
Speedkermit Damo wrote:
Dras Malar wrote:

Fozzie says people are making, and I quote, "****-tons" of isk in ratting anomalies, therefore, everthing is fine.


Come on now, hands up everyone that's making tons of isk ratting in nullsec, where are you all?

Botters don't count Fozzie.


It's not just botters, null anom isk making is superior to everything else in one aspect: Instant isk, no hauling, no converting stuff. The real problem is that people with high end knowledge can make way way more elsewhere which defeats the need for those same higher end PVErs to "live' in null. Thus the Rental Desert null became.

Null anom income is good but anoms (which should have never been press-ganged into being the center of the Dominion systems upgrades scheme) are predictable , soloable and semi-afkable. That means you end up with people afk ratting with Ishtars and other ships making less than what they would make playing actively OR playing outside of null (every combat pve way to make isk above what null anoms generates requires the player to be at the keyboard and playing).

The irony is that the same broken anoms system that kills the motivations for people to really live in null generates so much semi-passive/semi-afk liquid isk (again from ships like Ishtars) that it makes it look like null is this super lucrative place to actually live when in fact it's a renters desert that alliances lend out while line members go make REAL isk elsewhere like in incursions or wormholes or Faction warfare.

Fozzie talking about how much isk null generates suggests he doesn't understand the real issue. Null needs a new "Center of PVE isk making" activity that requires players to be at the keyboard, doesn't spew liquid isk into the economy and that scales so that people who get better at using the system can make more money than 'normals' (like how people who know how to blitz missions can make more than the average casual mission runner).

Anomalies should not be removed but rather decoupled from the systems upgrades scheme and should go back to being a deplete-able resource (like they are still in wormholes) so that if people still want to farm anoms and DED escalations from anoms they can, but they have to fly around a constellation looking for them. Making systems into "anomalie farms" was one of the dumbest things CCP ever did.

Of course the above will be misconstrued by the "don't touch my high sec mission income" crowd as some from of ploy/conspiracy by nullbears to get CCP to give us more isk lol.