These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Cade Windstalker
#1781 - 2015-03-24 06:55:00 UTC
Jarnis McPieksu wrote:
I'm facepalming as I'm reading this thread.

As it is clear that CCP intends to use the Entosis mechanic not only for sov (which is mostly meaningless in the grand scheme of things) but also for structures, up to outposts, it is clear that the design, as presented, is terribly broken.

As presented, this system is so hilariously biased towards giving the attacker every upside there is that I'm running out of adjectives to describe it. Attacker can spread out and choose where to start poking at things, pressure the defenders with massive number of simultaneous "capture starts" (some of which inevitably go through because there is only so many places where you can be at the same time). Attacker gets to pick when to start messing with things - defenders have to basically stand guard over all their space things throughout their prime time EVERY DAY or risk a flood of timers.

Once you have a flood of timers, attacker again gets to pick which ones they contest. Defenders have to cover every single one. They may contest none, only to come back the next day and trigger a flood of new timers. They may repeat this multiple times until you are sick and tired of standing guard and decide to skip one, only to find all your space-things burned to the ground.

As long as attacking against structures or sov facilities does not require the attacker to put any substantial assets at risk and can be attempted solo, per target, the whole system is hopelessly broken

The fact that CCP cannot apparently see this is troubling.

Everything else is unimportant detail at this time.

Edit: and for the record, PL doesn't hold any meaningful sov, I don't run any structures beyond a couple of fairly unimportant POSes. Should this go live as-described, I'd probably be among the guys burning everything to the ground and cackling maniacally. I still think it is a terrible design.


Part of the point here is to make it unappealing and impractical for entities to hold huge swaths of null sec space that aren't being actively used by their members. If a group is using all of their space to a high degree then as soon as someone starts a capture timer they have 30 or 40 minutes to respond and the capturing party has to sit around waving a "Shoot Me!" sign with their thumbs up their arse for the entire timer, and the defending party only needs a few minutes to revert the structure to a safe state once they kill or chase off the offending party.

If you have a suggestion for adjusting things to be less troll-friendly without making sov "defense by boredom" again I'm sure we'd all love to hear it.
Anthar Thebess
#1782 - 2015-03-24 07:42:05 UTC
Renter alliances start to adapt to upcoming sov changes.
http://evemaps.dotlan.net/alliance/Uncharted_Space

Renter space is already being divided to managable , but again controlled sub alliances.
Will CCP manage to overcome this or it will again fail in design.

Currently CCP already simplifies the way people can manage unused space by reducing size of the upgrades and ihub itself.
Replacing ihub at current size blocked ability to keep remote space , just because of the immense logistics.
With the reduced size you can just packup multiple ihubs to a single JF.

Way to go CCP Sad

Stop discrimination, help in a fight against terrorists

Show your support to The Cause!
Cade Windstalker
#1783 - 2015-03-24 09:51:41 UTC
Anthar Thebess wrote:
Renter alliances start to adapt to upcoming sov changes.
http://evemaps.dotlan.net/alliance/Uncharted_Space

Renter space is already being divided to managable , but again controlled sub alliances.
Will CCP manage to overcome this or it will again fail in design.

Currently CCP already simplifies the way people can manage unused space by reducing size of the upgrades and ihub itself.
Replacing ihub at current size blocked ability to keep remote space , just because of the immense logistics.
With the reduced size you can just packup multiple ihubs to a single JF.

Way to go CCP Sad


You don't need to sub-divide an alliance under the proposed system, you just need to be making use of the space in order for it to be defensible. There's no difference between defending 20 systems held by 20 Alliances or 1 Alliance, except that with more Alliances you have more trouble hitting the defense timers since only the defender can tick them down.
Veskrashen
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#1784 - 2015-03-24 12:26:39 UTC
Jarnis McPieksu wrote:
As long as attacking against structures or sov facilities does not require the attacker to put any substantial assets at risk and can be attempted solo, per target, the whole system is hopelessly broken

What's your minimum acceptable "commitment" then, in terms of fleet size / ship cost?

Folks keep saying a Solo Interceptor isn't enough commitment, but seem to be just fine with someone using a T1 cruiser or BC to do the same job, solo. Since those are pretty close to the same cost (with BCs being slightly more), cost alone can't be an issue.

Few folks are making an argument that you have to use at least X number of pilots or links to contest something - what's your minimum number?

I get that Trollceptors are going to be a PITA, I really do. And I get that having everything vulnerable every day is going to be a huge shift.

But if folks say a solo interceptor isn't enough risk / commitment, what IS the minimum acceptable risk / commitment?

We Gallente have a saying: "CCP created the Gallente Militia to train the Fighters..."
Jarnis McPieksu
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#1785 - 2015-03-24 13:57:45 UTC
Veskrashen wrote:
Jarnis McPieksu wrote:
As long as attacking against structures or sov facilities does not require the attacker to put any substantial assets at risk and can be attempted solo, per target, the whole system is hopelessly broken

What's your minimum acceptable "commitment" then, in terms of fleet size / ship cost?

Folks keep saying a Solo Interceptor isn't enough commitment, but seem to be just fine with someone using a T1 cruiser or BC to do the same job, solo. Since those are pretty close to the same cost (with BCs being slightly more), cost alone can't be an issue.

Few folks are making an argument that you have to use at least X number of pilots or links to contest something - what's your minimum number?

I get that Trollceptors are going to be a PITA, I really do. And I get that having everything vulnerable every day is going to be a huge shift.

But if folks say a solo interceptor isn't enough risk / commitment, what IS the minimum acceptable risk / commitment?


More than a single pilot, more than a throaway set of ships.

1 guy flying a frigate? nope. 1 guy flying anything is a bad idea. Far too easy to "swarm" everything with those who encounter resistance just bailing out.

5 guys flying frigates? Probably too little assets at risk.

5 guys flying T3 cruisers? Could work.

10 guys flying battlecruisers? Sounds good to me.

Now if structures actually have ability to fit substantial defenses that alone blap away that one guy in his whatever ship, things could work out. If you could plant a blap structure next to Sov flag/outpost, even better. That would force the entosis fiddler to actually have something that can tank the autonomous defenses (like today's towers work, minus the huge EHP to grind) - probably a handful of ships and a couple of logis.

But if all structures are effectively defenseless without active player reaction toa single guy in a single throaway ship, things are broken.
Veskrashen
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#1786 - 2015-03-24 14:12:50 UTC
Well, all I can say is if your minimum acceptable level of effort is 5-10 dudes in T3s or BCs, you're probably going to be disappointed. If one of the goals of Fozziesov is to remove artificial numbers / ship size restrictions to be a part of the sov game, then 5-10 pilots as a minimum is probably outside the realm of the feasible - especially since you only need 1 Entosis Link to contest a structure.

I agree that being able to bail out at will is a bad idea, which is why I'm glad that Entosis Links prevent warp / jump / remote effects while active. It's also why I think the longer range variant should have the longer cycle time, to increase the risk.

The ability to be swarmed is a risk, but it also opens the possibility to defeat your enemy in detail. It also means you can achieve local superiority with ease - Interceptor vs. BC means the Interceptor makes no progress. Any argument about swarm tactics attacking everything simultaneously needs to address how those minimal DPS minimal EHP ships will actually accomplish anything against a defender with a Link active on the same structure. And "go somewhere else" doesn't really answer the question.

No to passive defenses on structures - you want your flag on the map, then man up and defend your space, simple as that.

We Gallente have a saying: "CCP created the Gallente Militia to train the Fighters..."
Mario Putzo
#1787 - 2015-03-24 16:49:43 UTC
Jarnis McPieksu wrote:
Veskrashen wrote:
Jarnis McPieksu wrote:
As long as attacking against structures or sov facilities does not require the attacker to put any substantial assets at risk and can be attempted solo, per target, the whole system is hopelessly broken

What's your minimum acceptable "commitment" then, in terms of fleet size / ship cost?

Folks keep saying a Solo Interceptor isn't enough commitment, but seem to be just fine with someone using a T1 cruiser or BC to do the same job, solo. Since those are pretty close to the same cost (with BCs being slightly more), cost alone can't be an issue.

Few folks are making an argument that you have to use at least X number of pilots or links to contest something - what's your minimum number?

I get that Trollceptors are going to be a PITA, I really do. And I get that having everything vulnerable every day is going to be a huge shift.

But if folks say a solo interceptor isn't enough risk / commitment, what IS the minimum acceptable risk / commitment?


More than a single pilot, more than a throaway set of ships.

1 guy flying a frigate? nope. 1 guy flying anything is a bad idea. Far too easy to "swarm" everything with those who encounter resistance just bailing out.

5 guys flying frigates? Probably too little assets at risk.

5 guys flying T3 cruisers? Could work.

10 guys flying battlecruisers? Sounds good to me.

Now if structures actually have ability to fit substantial defenses that alone blap away that one guy in his whatever ship, things could work out. If you could plant a blap structure next to Sov flag/outpost, even better. That would force the entosis fiddler to actually have something that can tank the autonomous defenses (like today's towers work, minus the huge EHP to grind) - probably a handful of ships and a couple of logis.

But if all structures are effectively defenseless without active player reaction toa single guy in a single throaway ship, things are broken.



How come you continually, and conveniently ignore the other side of the coin. If 1 dude in a frigate is causing you so much grief in a system, send 1 dude in a destroyer to live in that system. You continually use words like "defenseless" and "swarm" and ignore the fact that the other folks have a responsibility to defend their assets.

One guy in a frig is going to cause ZERO effective issues because he is EASILY countered by 1 guy in a destroyer, who should be living in that system or relative area to increase Occupancy Metrics making it harder to effectively take ****.



Why, for the love of god, do people continuously look at **** in a vacuum when discussing balance metrics. Its absolutely astounding the amount of narrow scope minded individuals who can't see the forest through the trees. Its astonishing how many folks are ignorant of a whole package deal. Mind boggling really.

If you are playing the game the way it is being set up, you will have absolutely no issue with small groups of players "griefing" your ****, because you will have your own groups of players already there and present. At that point it becomes a Player issue, not a mechanic issue...if your pilots living in the space are afraid to engage a few trollceptors than the risk/reward gap lies in your pilots, not FozzieSov.
Mario Putzo
#1788 - 2015-03-24 17:02:14 UTC  |  Edited by: Mario Putzo
Anthar Thebess wrote:
Renter alliances start to adapt to upcoming sov changes.
http://evemaps.dotlan.net/alliance/Uncharted_Space

Renter space is already being divided to managable , but again controlled sub alliances.
Will CCP manage to overcome this or it will again fail in design.

Currently CCP already simplifies the way people can manage unused space by reducing size of the upgrades and ihub itself.
Replacing ihub at current size blocked ability to keep remote space , just because of the immense logistics.
With the reduced size you can just packup multiple ihubs to a single JF.

Way to go CCP Sad



What is wrong with this? If people want to rent, then they should be able to rent. If their corporation wishes to join a sub alliance of a larger entity than that is just another choice in the process of the game. Will those renters actively help defend that area? Who knows. But someone will have to actively defend that area, and that responsibility first rests squarely on the shoulders of the Landlord.

If NC. wants to have 100 sub alliances controlling all their constallations or what not to rent out, than NC. still needs to defend those places regardless if the name on the title is NC. or NA.

It really makes effectively 0 difference how people get into null sec, it makes 0 effective difference who owns the region and if it is rented or not.

The only thing that matters is, is their an entity willing to fight for that space, and is someone willing to defend it. And, Or, and Nor all apply hear, and all result in the same outcomes...either people will fight for what they want...or they wont. Regardless of who owns it and how many owners are working together in tandem.

Its not like the entirety of N3, can show up in Querious and counter entosis NA. Space. The only people capable of countering Entosis are NA. Members...so N3 alliances will be entirely at the mercy of their NA. Renters will to help defend...or alternatively populate NA. with their own defense corps effectively weakening their ability to defend their own native space...in either regard renting will remain as effectively redundant as it always has, and just another metric to call the whambulance over.
Tengu Grib
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#1789 - 2015-03-24 18:27:50 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
PotatoOverdose wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:

Evasion tactics will be optimal so long as they are possible.

[Citation needed]


Ever heard of these new things they have now, called people? People will always take the low road, they will always do as little as possible to get to their goals. It's really rather interesting.

Sarcasm aside, it's a binary equation. Either it's possible to capture sov by dicking around in a kiting ship, or it's not. If it is, then it's a damn sight easier than actually fighting for sov, so it will become the optimal assignment of resources.





Even if it doesn't disable them, it could reduce their effectiveness. I reduction in max velocity caused by the activation of the Entosis link would easily accomplish this. Sometimes trollceptors would be able to be threatening, for instance if all the defenders brought were battleships and battlecruisers, but if they have any micro warping frigates trollceptors will have a fight on their hands.

I think people also forget that a single defensive sov laser prevents capture. So you can sit at zero in a brick tanked battleship, surrounded by rapid light caracals, and trollceptors are helpless to attack you. They'll just have to go next door and bug someone else. (This isn't exactly ideal either as the optimal strategy for harassment will be to fly around looking for ways to avoid fights rather than looking for fights.)

Rabble Rabble Rabble

Praise James, Supreme Protector of High Sec.
Tengu Grib
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#1790 - 2015-03-24 18:38:21 UTC
Veskrashen wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
And as was stated here, evasion tactics not being optimal is also a goal of theirs.

Kiting comps should remain viable, even if they're not optimal.


I cannot disagree with this. I think I'll have to retract my previous statement about reducing speed. Sensor damps and jams should be enough to counter trollceptors pretty easily.

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 would also force capitals / supercapitals to either remain close to their objective to take advantage of the 2 minute cycle time on the T2 link, or be forced to face tank an enemy fleet for up to 5 minutes at a time.



Now that is an idea that I think demands consideration. I like the idea of having to make the choice of less risky time but more risky range, and less risky range but more risky time. That would allow both brawling and snipping or kiting doctrines to be viable with different strategies involved.

Rabble Rabble Rabble

Praise James, Supreme Protector of High Sec.
Jarnis McPieksu
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#1791 - 2015-03-24 20:34:49 UTC
Mario Putzo wrote:
Jarnis McPieksu wrote:
Veskrashen wrote:
Jarnis McPieksu wrote:
As long as attacking against structures or sov facilities does not require the attacker to put any substantial assets at risk and can be attempted solo, per target, the whole system is hopelessly broken

What's your minimum acceptable "commitment" then, in terms of fleet size / ship cost?

Folks keep saying a Solo Interceptor isn't enough commitment, but seem to be just fine with someone using a T1 cruiser or BC to do the same job, solo. Since those are pretty close to the same cost (with BCs being slightly more), cost alone can't be an issue.

Few folks are making an argument that you have to use at least X number of pilots or links to contest something - what's your minimum number?

I get that Trollceptors are going to be a PITA, I really do. And I get that having everything vulnerable every day is going to be a huge shift.

But if folks say a solo interceptor isn't enough risk / commitment, what IS the minimum acceptable risk / commitment?


More than a single pilot, more than a throaway set of ships.

1 guy flying a frigate? nope. 1 guy flying anything is a bad idea. Far too easy to "swarm" everything with those who encounter resistance just bailing out.

5 guys flying frigates? Probably too little assets at risk.

5 guys flying T3 cruisers? Could work.

10 guys flying battlecruisers? Sounds good to me.

Now if structures actually have ability to fit substantial defenses that alone blap away that one guy in his whatever ship, things could work out. If you could plant a blap structure next to Sov flag/outpost, even better. That would force the entosis fiddler to actually have something that can tank the autonomous defenses (like today's towers work, minus the huge EHP to grind) - probably a handful of ships and a couple of logis.

But if all structures are effectively defenseless without active player reaction toa single guy in a single throaway ship, things are broken.



How come you continually, and conveniently ignore the other side of the coin. If 1 dude in a frigate is causing you so much grief in a system, send 1 dude in a destroyer to live in that system. You continually use words like "defenseless" and "swarm" and ignore the fact that the other folks have a responsibility to defend their assets.

One guy in a frig is going to cause ZERO effective issues because he is EASILY countered by 1 guy in a destroyer, who should be living in that system or relative area to increase Occupancy Metrics making it harder to effectively take ****.



Why, for the love of god, do people continuously look at **** in a vacuum when discussing balance metrics. Its absolutely astounding the amount of narrow scope minded individuals who can't see the forest through the trees. Its astonishing how many folks are ignorant of a whole package deal. Mind boggling really.

If you are playing the game the way it is being set up, you will have absolutely no issue with small groups of players "griefing" your ****, because you will have your own groups of players already there and present. At that point it becomes a Player issue, not a mechanic issue...if your pilots living in the space are afraid to engage a few trollceptors than the risk/reward gap lies in your pilots, not FozzieSov.



The one guy has no skin in the game.

Granted, we don't know enough about structures to fully comment on them, but if they are just "dumb rocks" that one entosis link can contest, then the defender has hundreds of millions, potentially billions of ISKies "on the table". The other guy has a frig and an entosis link.

99 times out of 100, a dessie comes and kills him. Op success.

1 times out of 100 people miss things, oops, bye bye space thingy.

Attacker chooses when to push for entosis poke.

Attacker chooses which entosis poke RFs to contest.

Defender has to be there 100% of the time, or lose very expensive spacethingys. Attacker keeps tossing away expendable stuff repeatedly, waiting for that one day when the defender is fed up of having to go around whacking moles.

Also attacker chooses which entosis "solo" pokes are actually backed up by more, giving defender the ship losses. So defender has to form up something by definition, just to blap that one t1 frig, because one t1 frig can be a fleet of stuff because cynos and bridges.

All the time, attacker has initiative, attacker has all the advantages. Defender has to react to every single thing while attacker puts nothing of value at risk. A single event is trivial to counter. Ten events every damn day gets very tiresome very quickly, especially as just responding with a single ship can so easily end in a welp.

If attacker would actually have to show up with something of some value, all those times when he's blapped off the structure, he'd lose something.

Again, this is with incomplete info. If you can anchor POS-replacement-structures with automated defenses - and if you can anchor them next to other structures (sov thingys, manufacturing structures, gate structures etc) - the problem basically goes away as attacker now has to bring enough ships to tank the defensive structure fire while using the entosis thingy, ensuring that if/when defender responds, there is an actual fight, not a T1 frig dying (nothing of value) or moonwalking to sunset.
Cade Windstalker
#1792 - 2015-03-24 21:04:21 UTC
Jarnis McPieksu wrote:
99 times out of 100, a dessie comes and kills him. Op success.

1 times out of 100 people miss things, oops, bye bye space thingy.

Attacker chooses when to push for entosis poke.

Attacker chooses which entosis poke RFs to contest.

Defender has to be there 100% of the time, or lose very expensive spacethingys. Attacker keeps tossing away expendable stuff repeatedly, waiting for that one day when the defender is fed up of having to go around whacking moles.

Also attacker chooses which entosis "solo" pokes are actually backed up by more, giving defender the ship losses. So defender has to form up something by definition, just to blap that one t1 frig, because one t1 frig can be a fleet of stuff because cynos and bridges.

All the time, attacker has initiative, attacker has all the advantages. Defender has to react to every single thing while attacker puts nothing of value at risk. A single event is trivial to counter. Ten events every damn day gets very tiresome very quickly, especially as just responding with a single ship can so easily end in a welp.


You don't lose just because a single timer ticks down, you lose if you somehow miss the Alliance Wide mail saying "this thing needs to be locked down at this time over here". If the enemy sends throwaway stuff then you blap it, spend maybe half an hour getting 10 node points on your side, and go back to whatever you were doing. The attacker has to spend *at least* 80 minutes doing the same thing if you're fully utilizing space. If you're only mostly utilizing it then at least an hour.

If you're going for war by frustration then the advantage is squarely on the defender's side. Sure they keep getting poked but if the enemy is a sov holding alliance then there's nothing stopping them from poking right back and if they aren't then they'll probably get bored of wasting 50-100mil ISK ships for no gain and minimal enjoyment.
Saisin
Chao3's Rogue Operatives Corp
#1793 - 2015-03-24 21:31:35 UTC
Jarnis McPieksu wrote:

...
10 guys flying battlecruisers? Sounds good to me.
...

The only thing that I agree with from your post is requiring at least a battlecruiser hull to fit an entosis link.

There should absolutely not be any requirement in term of having a certain number of pilots around to apply the effect. Higher numbers will alwyas be better to defend the entosis ship.

And the defensive Entosis ship should have the exact same limitations.

Vote Borat Guereen for CSM XII

Check out the Minarchist Space Project
Veskrashen
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#1794 - 2015-03-24 22:20:37 UTC
Saisin wrote:
Jarnis McPieksu wrote:

...
10 guys flying battlecruisers? Sounds good to me.
...

The only thing that I agree with from your post is requiring at least a battlecruiser hull to fit an entosis link.

Why is a BC the minimum?

Because it costs 40mil? Because it can't evade a gatecamp? Because you want BCs to be relevant again?

I disagree that a solo pilot has no skin in the game. He has his ship and his pod (however cheap or expensive they may be), and he's representing whatever alliance or corp or coalition he flies with. Why should he need 4-9 friends before he becomes relevant? Isn't the whole point of Butterfly Effect trailers and This Is EVE to show that every single pilot is and should be meaningful?

We Gallente have a saying: "CCP created the Gallente Militia to train the Fighters..."
Saisin
Chao3's Rogue Operatives Corp
#1795 - 2015-03-24 22:29:45 UTC
Veskrashen wrote:

Why is a BC the minimum?
Because it costs 40mil? Because it can't evade a gatecamp? Because you want BCs to be relevant again?

Yes, it is still an affordable ship that could be made more relevant, and would not cause that many issues about trolling entosis links in multiple locations at the same time, either by powerful groups spreading around, or random solo players that happen to fly by.

Veskrashen wrote:

I disagree that a solo pilot has no skin in the game. He has his ship and his pod (however cheap or expensive they may be), and he's representing whatever alliance or corp or coalition he flies with. Why should he need 4-9 friends before he becomes relevant? Isn't the whole point of Butterfly Effect trailers and This Is EVE to show that every single pilot is and should be meaningful?


Totally agree with that.
The excellent thing about entosis is that a single player can attack, and a single player can defend, but in both cases, more players will help the efforts.

Vote Borat Guereen for CSM XII

Check out the Minarchist Space Project
Veskrashen
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#1796 - 2015-03-24 22:38:44 UTC
Saisin wrote:
Veskrashen wrote:

Why is a BC the minimum?
Because it costs 40mil? Because it can't evade a gatecamp? Because you want BCs to be relevant again?

Yes, it is still an affordable ship that could be made more relevant, and would not cause that many issues about trolling entosis links in multiple locations at the same time, either by powerful groups spreading around, or random solo players that happen to fly by.

Unfortunately, making sure that Entosis boats can get past bubbleinstalockhellcamps is a design goal that we need to be able to fulfill, otherwise all the major groups will be able to build high enough walls to continue holding more space than they can occupy. Which pretty much nullifies a big part of the conflict drivers in Fozziesov

In addition, Fozzie specifically stated that they want it to have as little impact on what fleet comp you fly as possible, fitting-wise. Restricting it to BC+ hulls would run directly counter to that. Not to mention the fact that I doubt CCP will make Sov mechanics dependent on folks who want BCs Online back.

We Gallente have a saying: "CCP created the Gallente Militia to train the Fighters..."
Cade Windstalker
#1797 - 2015-03-24 22:42:07 UTC
I disagree with the idea that there should be a minimum ship requirement to fit an Entosis Link, especially not a BC. T1 Cruiser fleets are fun and viable, so you've just tossed them out of the window with that requirement. Same with Destroyers.

If it can hold grid or mount an effective attack or defense it should be viable. I think we'll get a more productive discussion out of focusing on that requirement instead of zeroing in on the idea of trolling interceptors or "cheap" frigate fleets here. Plus don't forget the T1 Entosis is going to cost around 40 mil, and the T2 around 80 mil so the cost of the ship is less relevant unless we want to hard limit this to Battleships and T2 of cruiser and up, which most serious replies (and CCP) seem to agree as being excessively limiting.

So, question, is the range on the T2 part of the problem here? On the one hand that kind of range seems necessary to enable sniper fleets and other doctrines as viable in this new sov system, on the other it seems like a big part of the problem with Interceptors since an Inty that can't warp off is much less of a threat if you know he's going to be within swatting range of the target when you land on grid, rather than anywhere within 250km.

Maybe split the Entosis Link into more modules than just a T1 and T2? Like, a Long Range Entosis Link that has higher fitting requirements or a Mass Penatly or something, but has the range needed to support those sorts of fleets, vs something like the current T1. There's some potential for confusion here but if you're going out to take Sov a certain amount of understanding and research should be assumed as a prerequisite.
Veskrashen
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#1798 - 2015-03-24 22:50:46 UTC
Cade Windstalker wrote:
So, question, is the range on the T2 part of the problem here? On the one hand that kind of range seems necessary to enable sniper fleets and other doctrines as viable in this new sov system, on the other it seems like a big part of the problem with Interceptors since an Inty that can't warp off is much less of a threat if you know he's going to be within swatting range of the target when you land on grid, rather than anywhere within 250km.

I think the instawarp + bubble immunity of Interceptors is the issue, because folks can't just bubblecamp the hell out of chokepoints 4 hours per day and maintain their huge empires.

The 250km range isn't an issue in an era of combat probes and no deadspace to prevent on-grid warps. In addition, since losing lock drops your link and forces you to reconnect for 2/5 minutes, SeBo'd Mauluses can easily shut down any max kite Entosis fleet.

We Gallente have a saying: "CCP created the Gallente Militia to train the Fighters..."
Cade Windstalker
#1799 - 2015-03-24 23:09:10 UTC
Veskrashen wrote:
I think the instawarp + bubble immunity of Interceptors is the issue, because folks can't just bubblecamp the hell out of chokepoints 4 hours per day and maintain their huge empires.

The 250km range isn't an issue in an era of combat probes and no deadspace to prevent on-grid warps. In addition, since losing lock drops your link and forces you to reconnect for 2/5 minutes, SeBo'd Mauluses can easily shut down any max kite Entosis fleet.


I think anyone expecting these huge empires to stick, at least as they are now, after this update is delusional. Especially given that the system is specifically setup to make holding space you don't use hard, and part of that is definitely the vulnerability to attack of multiple disparate points. Since you don't need a massive fleet to down sov structures anymore you'd better be holding space you both use and can defend.

That said, I think concerns of "death by annoyance" are valid here. Eve has no shortage of trolls and Interceptor pilots are cheap and easy to train so it's very possible for someone to just keep poking defenses until their enemy gets too fed up to defend it effectively. IMO that's an undesirable outcome, but I don't see an easy way to actually remove it as a possibility without hobbling the system into something that's just another version of the grind we have now or isn't abuseable as hell.
Specia1 K
State Protectorate
Caldari State
#1800 - 2015-03-24 23:18:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Specia1 K
Cade Windstalker wrote:
Veskrashen wrote:
I think the instawarp + bubble immunity of Interceptors is the issue, because folks can't just bubblecamp the hell out of chokepoints 4 hours per day and maintain their huge empires.

The 250km range isn't an issue in an era of combat probes and no deadspace to prevent on-grid warps. In addition, since losing lock drops your link and forces you to reconnect for 2/5 minutes, SeBo'd Mauluses can easily shut down any max kite Entosis fleet.


I think anyone expecting these huge empires to stick, at least as they are now, after this update is delusional. Especially given that the system is specifically setup to make holding space you don't use hard, and part of that is definitely the vulnerability to attack of multiple disparate points. Since you don't need a massive fleet to down sov structures anymore you'd better be holding space you both use and can defend.

That said, I think concerns of "death by annoyance" are valid here. Eve has no shortage of trolls and Interceptor pilots are cheap and easy to train so it's very possible for someone to just keep poking defenses until their enemy gets too fed up to defend it effectively. IMO that's an undesirable outcome, but I don't see an easy way to actually remove it as a possibility without hobbling the system into something that's just another version of the grind we have now or isn't abuseable as hell.


There's nothing stopping me trolling the trolls with a Keres, either. Just for the lolz, breaking all those target locks and warping out. You will be hard pressed to scan me down with probes when I'm just off grid waiting for you to start your entosis linkBlink

Champion of the Knights of the General Discussion

Thunderdome