Player Features and Ideas Discussion

I'm not much of a theorycrafter, but since the thread title includes 'Entosis Link' and 'Ship Balance', I will just throw out the one thing that is bugging me about the Phase II devblog as it relates to the OP.


Based on the guidelines above, and the bulk of the discussion in this thread, the key hurdle with the initial proposal as i see it is this:


Depending on how one defines 'low fitting requirements', this stipulation more or less forms the crux of the assumptions about interceptors deployed solely in a griefing capacity. My thoughts are thus:

Since the pilot is using the ship's processing power to brute force an embedded electronic security apparatus, with experimental and poorly-understood tech no less, the CPU requirement should reflect the extraordinary nature of the module. However, in keeping with the 'minimum effect' and 'simple as possible' conditions above, artificial ship restrictions and any gimmicks on top of the basic mechanics are to be avoided.

To my thinking, consider a change to the above quote to read '120 tf CPU requirement, uses a low power slot'.

I realize there may be no precedent for a targeted active module occupying the low rack, but this is an extremely niche case, one that affects structures and not ships. What's more important, occupying the low rack reduces the ability to use fitting modules such as co-processors to circumvent the module's fitting cost, as well and speed and agility modules to enhance ability to disengage at will. This combination of CPU amount (similar to a cov-ops cloak) and low power occupancy allows most ships, including interceptors, to fit the module without the need for an artificial Class restriction, but should hamper the ability of these small ships to be much more than a button-sitting dummy.

Would this push the module into a more acceptable space?

Your reading comprehension needs work. Read what I wrote.

I get the point. In fact I get many the points made in this thread.

Really the only thing I truly argue is that everyone has an equal right to speak about these changes. Whatever your playstyle or location in the game, this will affect you. Many will take the opportunity offered by CCP to get involved, provided the mechanics allow it. Calling them all 'losers' just makes you look defensive, btw.

It doesn't matter if these are good/bad for ME personally, I welcome the new opportunities offered. And I will adapt.
Do whatever you wish to with the changes. The game will only get more interesting.

Thats by far the most narrow-minded and self-centred post on these forums, ever. If you think that toxic prejudice, empty threats and baseless chest-beating if will make anyone take your misguided opinions seriously, think again. CCP isn't your mom who gives you everything when you cry and throw a tantrum.

You don't see the big picture, and definitely can't look beyond yourself. You can't even write about anything else than you. I don't give a **** about some random nerd's twatter feed, but it's quite adorable that you're just parroting someone else and don't even feel bad about it.

Thank you for adding nothing but your own putrid bitterness, bile and hatred to this thread. You weren't in one of thise tracking dreads we murdered in S-NJBB in Vale of thr Silent not long after phoebe delpoyed were you? All those tasty rattlesnake kills as well (I suppose the irony that most rattlesnake BPCs come from the CFC is lost on you).

Anyway, you claim there is a bigger picture than I was thinking, what is it? Or is that statement as hollow as ny chest beating was to you? Dear leader the yoga loving nerd, myself and a good portion of the CFC has come to the conclusion these mechanics are broken and we will abuse them, will you do so to or will you come at me honorably in a battleship? Either way I most likely will be asleep or at work so I might only see you on the weekend.

Regarding the "trollceptors", how about scaling the capture speed inversely to the current ship speed? So you could zip around fast to evade everyone, but it would make your progress much slower than if you were standing still.

Too complex.

Simples is to make SMALL ENTOSIS link (for frigates) be short range and slow.

Medium entosis link be medium speed and range

LARGE entosis link for battleships be long range and fast.

HUGE entosis link for capitals, long range and VERY SLOW

I am sure somewhere Fozzie suggested removing fleet warp was a long term goal, which is a massive nerf to our gameplay and an unnessecary change which will not only skull **** massive fleets but is a stealth buff to light brawler fleets (HACs) and bombers and another nerf to battleships, which apparently are in a good place, which was news to everyone in null sec. Even Manfred Sideous of PL who has used battleships vs Hero was a bit wtf with that comment. Sniper doctrines, already in a weak spot are also looking unhappy as they often rely on fleetwarp for positioning.

The only people who I see advocating for the removal fleet warps was Grarth "anger management" Telken and random small gang lovers.

That being said, constellation capture nodes doesnt encourage large fleets of battleships, but small groups of cruisers and frigates. Battleships will be consigned to the next cap brawl, which have no reason to happen now. Large groups of cruisers like now will be used to bash POS and Pocos because screw warping anywhere in a battlehsip.

The most important thing(in my mind) is that the Entosis links should be very expensive on release. You can always reduce the price as time goes on. If you make them too cheap, you can't easily increase the price later because people will have already stockpiled them.

And price is the easiest counter to troll Entosis ships. If killing troll ships is profitable enough, then people will defend their space naturally.