These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Raphael Celestine
Celestine Inc.
#1841 - 2015-03-25 23:47:44 UTC
scorchlikeshiswhiskey wrote:
How will these new structures behave in wormholes and what changes do you foresee them causing in the social, and quality of, life in wormholes?

I have confined myself to a single question in the hopes that it might get answered instead of an even longer rant or a wall of questions. Also, I understand that these structures are still being designed so their mechanics might not be carved in digi-stone. Here's hoping....

Page one of the Observatory Arrays & Gates thread has this:
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
elitatwo wrote:
Can some of them be placed in wormhole space?


We are planning on some of the structure to be placed in W-space yes, the exact type and numbers are up to discussion based on the gameplay consequences they are going to have there. It all depends if we feel they're going to negatively impact this area of space or spice up gameplay.

Edit: and I'm referring to all the structures here, not only Observatory Arrays and Gates.

I feel like I've seen a dev explicitly say something about 'consulting WH groups' before deciding what wil/won't get into WHs as well, but I can't find it right now.

I don't think there's any hard info on exactly how WHs are going to be affected - things are still pretty early in the development process, so everything's still subject to change - but the devs at least remember that you guys exist and that this will affect you.
FT Diomedes
The Graduates
#1842 - 2015-03-26 00:48:27 UTC
Kagura Nikon wrote:
VolatileVoid wrote:
Kagura Nikon wrote:
VolatileVoid wrote:
Mario Putzo wrote:
And there is absolutely nothing stopping the defender from having their own folks doing the exact same thing to the other side. If NC. is sending Trollceptors into CFC space all day, then GSF can do the EXACT same thing right back at them in N3 space.


I read this again and again.

As entosis links will be used mostly for trolling, how do you apply entosis links to npc space and lowsec?



You could start by reading all dev blogs. ALL structures will be changed, and all will be afftected by entosis. Including the ones that will be deployed in low sec and NPC space to replace the POS, since outposts will NOT BE ABLE TO MANUFACTURE!

So yup, NPC space will be less risky.. but not riskless.


Then tell me how to apply the entosis link to the npc stations where the pirates hide to let them undock.
Do you even read what you write?



I did, but you on other hand is clearly unable to do so. I never said that you will aply them to the NPC outposts. Try again.. read it.. i know it might hurt your head, byt if 6 year olds can do it, so can you.

PEOPLE LIVING IN NPC STATION WILL NEED TO DEPLOY THEIR OWN STRUCTURES!! BECAUSE THEY WILL NOT BE ABLE TO BUILD ANYTHIGN ON OUTPOSTS.

IS that so HARD to read?


And they cannot purchase anything in high sec and import it?

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

Cade Windstalker
#1843 - 2015-03-26 01:28:51 UTC
Mario Putzo wrote:
Right expecting someone to defend with either and alt or a main is bad for emergent gameplay...so lets automate the defense so we can avoid that...

If trollceptors are the worst issue people have with this system...why wait until June to release it.


No one is saying that people shouldn't be expected to defend their space. What people are saying is that the enemy should have to risk something, as in have a reasonable chance of getting blown up, in order to attack the opponent's Sov structures. Right now, with the information we have, the general consensus seems to be that an Interceptor is going to be at only slightly more risk of being blown up harassing Sov than it is sitting in station in Jita.

Possibly less risk if there's a cat in the house of the player in question, and the fuzzy thing happens to hit the undock button. Roll

FT Diomedes wrote:


*STUFF*...

Under the proposed system, "If the attackers win a capture event for a Territorial Claim Unit or Infrastructure Hub, then the structure explodes and any alliance will be free to attempt deploying of their own replacement structures."

Now, here is my suggestion: "If the attackers win a capture event for a Territorial Claim Unit or Infrastructure Hub, then the structure becomes vulnerable to capture, theft, or destruction."

...*STUFF*...

I think that is a reasonable compromise. What say you?

Advantages over the current proposal:
1. It still gives attackers a way to make people undock and fight to defend their space.
2. It requires real commitment to actually destroy any structure.
3. It preserves a role for Dreadnoughts and other big ships in the destruction of structures.
4. It allows for more emergent gameplay and player interaction.
5. Assuming that some structures are the right size, it could allow for some interesting choices regarding Freighters and Jump Freighters.

I see no disadvantages of this system versus the current proposal.


One, why in the crap, when we have a capital re-balance coming along with this stuff, would we want to preserve a gameplay element that I've most often heard described as "a chance to catch up on my TV watching". Shooting structures is *boring* and the only possible advantage to preserving it for the purpose of destroying these structures is allowing stronger players to more thoroughly crush weaker ones.

Letting people cap a structure with a further Entosis cycle on the thing doesn't make much sense either and would seem to just open things up to trolling and "defeat from the jaws of victory" plays. That's not emergent gameplay, it's just a way to make whatever epic fight just happened meaningless. That's a bad technique when writers do it in fiction, I don't see a compelling argument for having it happen in Eve.

Also that "real commitment" is part of what CCP are trying to remove, because structure shooting is *boring* and requires you to maintain a massive cap fleet just to become part of the sov game.

Lastly, having capture over destruction be the default removes an important resource sink from the game, so another strike against it there.
Specia1 K
State Protectorate
Caldari State
#1844 - 2015-03-26 02:47:31 UTC  |  Edited by: Specia1 K
Cade Windstalker wrote:


...the general consensus seems to be that an Interceptor is going to be at only slightly more risk of being blown up harassing Sov than it is sitting in station in Jita...


It is not the consensus in this thread. Disingenuous comments like this negate your whole argument and demonstrate your lack of experience and knowledge in this discussion.

"No one is saying..."
What people are saying..."
the general consensus..."
"heard described as..."
"what CCP are trying to..."

pls, listen to yourself
"That's a bad technique when writers do it...."

You have made some good arguments in previous posts, btw.

Champion of the Knights of the General Discussion

Thunderdome
FT Diomedes
The Graduates
#1845 - 2015-03-26 03:48:24 UTC
Cade Windstalker wrote:
Mario Putzo wrote:
Right expecting someone to defend with either and alt or a main is bad for emergent gameplay...so lets automate the defense so we can avoid that...

If trollceptors are the worst issue people have with this system...why wait until June to release it.


No one is saying that people shouldn't be expected to defend their space. What people are saying is that the enemy should have to risk something, as in have a reasonable chance of getting blown up, in order to attack the opponent's Sov structures. Right now, with the information we have, the general consensus seems to be that an Interceptor is going to be at only slightly more risk of being blown up harassing Sov than it is sitting in station in Jita.

Possibly less risk if there's a cat in the house of the player in question, and the fuzzy thing happens to hit the undock button. Roll

FT Diomedes wrote:


*STUFF*...

Under the proposed system, "If the attackers win a capture event for a Territorial Claim Unit or Infrastructure Hub, then the structure explodes and any alliance will be free to attempt deploying of their own replacement structures."

Now, here is my suggestion: "If the attackers win a capture event for a Territorial Claim Unit or Infrastructure Hub, then the structure becomes vulnerable to capture, theft, or destruction."

...*STUFF*...

I think that is a reasonable compromise. What say you?

Advantages over the current proposal:
1. It still gives attackers a way to make people undock and fight to defend their space.
2. It requires real commitment to actually destroy any structure.
3. It preserves a role for Dreadnoughts and other big ships in the destruction of structures.
4. It allows for more emergent gameplay and player interaction.
5. Assuming that some structures are the right size, it could allow for some interesting choices regarding Freighters and Jump Freighters.

I see no disadvantages of this system versus the current proposal.


One, why in the crap, when we have a capital re-balance coming along with this stuff, would we want to preserve a gameplay element that I've most often heard described as "a chance to catch up on my TV watching". Shooting structures is *boring* and the only possible advantage to preserving it for the purpose of destroying these structures is allowing stronger players to more thoroughly crush weaker ones.

Letting people cap a structure with a further Entosis cycle on the thing doesn't make much sense either and would seem to just open things up to trolling and "defeat from the jaws of victory" plays. That's not emergent gameplay, it's just a way to make whatever epic fight just happened meaningless. That's a bad technique when writers do it in fiction, I don't see a compelling argument for having it happen in Eve.

Also that "real commitment" is part of what CCP are trying to remove, because structure shooting is *boring* and requires you to maintain a massive cap fleet just to become part of the sov game.

Lastly, having capture over destruction be the default removes an important resource sink from the game, so another strike against it there.


I find shooting structures in subcapitals to be very boring. I find it quite exciting when I have Dreadnoughts and/or Supercapitals, in Siege mode, and committed to the fight.

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

Mario Putzo
#1846 - 2015-03-26 04:17:06 UTC  |  Edited by: Mario Putzo
Cade Windstalker wrote:
Mario Putzo wrote:
Right expecting someone to defend with either and alt or a main is bad for emergent gameplay...so lets automate the defense so we can avoid that...

If trollceptors are the worst issue people have with this system...why wait until June to release it.


No one is saying that people shouldn't be expected to defend their space. What people are saying is that the enemy should have to risk something, as in have a reasonable chance of getting blown up, in order to attack the opponent's Sov structures. Right now, with the information we have, the general consensus seems to be that an Interceptor is going to be at only slightly more risk of being blown up harassing Sov than it is sitting in station in Jita.

Possibly less risk if there's a cat in the house of the player in question, and the fuzzy thing happens to hit the undock button. Roll


They are risking something, and perhaps even more of an investment, spending time playing chicken and time is the single most valuable commodity in EVE, as it is in life. Just because you don't agree on the value of the risk does not mean there is not risk.

But lets take a break complaining about trollceptors, which is a bottom of the barrel argument and talk about the only actual issue with FozzieSov. While not directly about Entosis Links (which are perfectly fine as they are drawn up currently) it is the result of successful usage I think that the discussion is meritable within this thread.

Having a Random 4 hour window is a poor design, because it allows a group of people to essentially force people to stand around with their thumb in their ass doing nothing for 4 hours (if they choose to defend an asset). As I said earlier time is the most valuable commodity in the game, and having an unadjustable 4 hour window where nothing at all could happen is bad. Who wants to sit around for 4 hours doing nothing. No one.

Since CCP has stated that they desire constellation control to be more influential and more desirable than I believe the following should be a precedent within Occupancy based metrics.

The Average System Tier (rounded down) within a constellation should provide groups controlling that space with a benefit that helps them decrease that 4 hour window. Unbeknownst to the instigators of course (unless they crunch the Sys Tier numbers, and know beforehand the timer chosen by the defender which in and of itself promotes spying related gameplay, and intel gathering gameplay). In laymans terms, the higher the average Constellation Tier the smaller the Reinforce window becomes.

/
Average system tier is of course the average of all systems within a constellation if you have a constellation of 5 systems

Sys 1 = T3
Sys 2 = T1
Sys 3 = T3
Sys 4 = T5
Sys 5 = T5

Your constellation Average would be 5+5+3+3+1/5 = 3.4> 3

With benefits of the average as follows


Average T1 = No benefit (4 Hour Window)
Average T2 = 3 Hour Window
Average T3 = 2 Hour Window
Average T4 = 1 Hour Window
Average T5 = Exact Timer.

For the above 5 system constellation you would wind up with an average of T3, and resulting within a 2 hour window around your predetermined exit timer.
/

So when a defender picks their exit time the higher their System Tiers within a constellation will allow them to have a much more precise window in which they can defend in. This essentially diffuses any trolling in the end outcome the more you make use of your space, but still allows for trolling to effectively cause groups to pay attention to their space in the overall. Allowing ultimately for the defender to know exactly when he must show up to defend his stuff, instead of spending multiple hours waiting for RNG to determine that. As well as encouraging groups to "soften" targets Occupancy Metric building capacity in hopes of reducing Average system Tiers before a major assault takes place, or just to keep the owner of that space honest.

This reinforces people living in various areas of space because it encourages maximizing the system tiers of every system within a constellation.

Of all the complaining about trollceptors, this is the only relevant issue, the 4 hour random window...which should become more manageable for the defender the more his space is utilized.

Attackers however will not be notified of the exit timer, and instead be held to the 4 hour random window. This means if an attacked is serious about taking an asset they must land and take the grid and hold it for up to 4 hours, while the defender can show up with a defensive fleet and have the knowledge of what the attacker is fielding before hand.

So while instigating is heavily favored for the attacker, the defender ultimately holds the advantages when the cards must be put on the table...If they are using all of their space.

And for folks who have assets in other regions of space where the occupancy sov metrics do not apply, they are also risking a lot less overall in the end scheme of things holding those assets, as such they will maintain the 4 hour window and will be encouraged to actively defend their stuff, or take it back should they lose it.


FT Diomedes wrote:


I find shooting structures in subcapitals to be very boring. I find it quite exciting when I have Dreadnoughts and/or Supercapitals, in Siege mode, and committed to the fight.


There is absolutely nothing stopping you from committing Capitals and Super Capitals to a fight in FozzieSov. Of course fighting ships and fighting structures is a much different risk, and most folks will shy away from fielding their big toys against things that will shoot back and actually try to kill them.
Lienzo
Amanuensis
#1847 - 2015-03-26 05:51:04 UTC
Raphael Celestine wrote:
Lienzo wrote:
The lynchpin is changing how sov levels are achieved. Rather than just require time, require adjacency. To have a sov level two system, it must be surrounded by sov level 1 or higher systems. If one system drops to level 0, all adjacent systems drop to level 1. Up or down changes each take 24hrs to go into effect.


This would create a hard minimum on territory size if you want access to all the benefits of holding sov - you must hold at least four systems in every direction from your HQ system, or you can't hit sov 5. Period.

That's a bad thing. It might be unlikely that a small group will ever be able to take one or two systems and hold them for any length of time, but the mechanics should at least allow them to try - and if they do manage to pull it off, they should get exactly the same sov benefits as the big boys.


As I mentioned, there should be negative consequences to built-up sov, just the same as the empires endure. In this case, extractive activities and PVE suffers, pushing those activities to the periphery. If it's bad for their ability to gain potentially not very useful capital ships, then at least it should be good for their wallets in the meantime.

Ideally, anchoring shipyards and such in low sov systems should be possible, only risky. It's isn't likely that small groups will be able to hold a Sov 5 system for a month without external support, especially as it is such a red flag in the current environment, or any future one.

In addition, pocket constellations should be extremely advantageous for creating player capitol systems in short spans of time.
Aiyshimin
Shiva Furnace
#1848 - 2015-03-26 11:13:29 UTC
FT Diomedes wrote:
I posted this over in the main thread, but I am curious to see people's thoughts specifically as it relates to the issues associated with destroying things via Entosis.

One of the things that has bothered me the most about the proposed sovereignty system is that it allows small, non-committal entities to destroy valuable things without committing very much of their own to the fight. With destructible stations coming SoonTM, this is particularly troubling. In light of that, I suggest the following compromise.

In the proposed system, f I go into your system and run my Entosis link on your I-Hub and you do not stop me by chasing me away or blowing up my ship, it generates the standard timers as proposed by Fozzie. Forty-eight hours later, we have the multi-node Entosis capture point battles (or you blue ball me). If I win, I keep my stuff.

Under the proposed system, "If the attackers win a capture event for a Territorial Claim Unit or Infrastructure Hub, then the structure explodes and any alliance will be free to attempt deploying of their own replacement structures."

Now, here is my suggestion: "If the attackers win a capture event for a Territorial Claim Unit or Infrastructure Hub, then the structure becomes vulnerable to capture, theft, or destruction."

A vulnerable structure may be captured when any alliance/corporation runs one Entosis cycle on it, at any time (no prime time window). Once captured, the structure belongs to that alliance and becomes vulnerable again during the next day's prime time for the capturing alliance. The captured structure retains the indices and other advantages earned by the previous owner[s].

A vulnerable structure may be stolen when any player scoops the structure into the cargo hold of his ship. Structures too large to fit into a ship cannot be stolen. Once scooped, the structure loses the indices and other advantages earned by the previous owner[s].

A vulnerable structure can be destroyed at any time, provided someone is willing to shoot at it long enough or bring enough [big] ships to do the job quickly. While there are no reinforcement timers, the structures all have a significant amount of hit points. In the event of destruction, the structure loss mail will belong to the last alliance/corporation to own the structure.

I think that is a reasonable compromise. What say you?

Advantages over the current proposal:
1. It still gives attackers a way to make people undock and fight to defend their space.
2. It requires real commitment to actually destroy any structure.
3. It preserves a role for Dreadnoughts and other big ships in the destruction of structures.
4. It allows for more emergent gameplay and player interaction.
5. Assuming that some structures are the right size, it could allow for some interesting choices regarding Freighters and Jump Freighters.

I see no disadvantages of this system versus the current proposal.


Except it completely nullifies the change by once again creating the need to bring a massive blob of caps and supers for the final grind. Which is what you probably want to achieve anyway.


Raphael Celestine
Celestine Inc.
#1849 - 2015-03-26 11:21:48 UTC
Lienzo wrote:
Raphael Celestine wrote:
Lienzo wrote:
The lynchpin is changing how sov levels are achieved. Rather than just require time, require adjacency. To have a sov level two system, it must be surrounded by sov level 1 or higher systems. If one system drops to level 0, all adjacent systems drop to level 1. Up or down changes each take 24hrs to go into effect.


This would create a hard minimum on territory size if you want access to all the benefits of holding sov - you must hold at least four systems in every direction from your HQ system, or you can't hit sov 5. Period.

That's a bad thing. It might be unlikely that a small group will ever be able to take one or two systems and hold them for any length of time, but the mechanics should at least allow them to try - and if they do manage to pull it off, they should get exactly the same sov benefits as the big boys.


As I mentioned, there should be negative consequences to built-up sov, just the same as the empires endure. In this case, extractive activities and PVE suffers, pushing those activities to the periphery. If it's bad for their ability to gain potentially not very useful capital ships, then at least it should be good for their wallets in the meantime.

Ideally, anchoring shipyards and such in low sov systems should be possible, only risky. It's isn't likely that small groups will be able to hold a Sov 5 system for a month without external support, especially as it is such a red flag in the current environment, or any future one.

In addition, pocket constellations should be extremely advantageous for creating player capitol systems in short spans of time.

Like I said, I fully realise that one- or two-system pocket kingdoms are an unlikely scenario. But a single-constellation empire will still fall well short of the 'four systems in every direction' benchmark in most cases, as will a fair number of two-constellation empires. Even if it doesn't make Sov useless, losing the ability to build up to sov 5 still means that small holders only get part of the options that the serious players do.

The whole point of sov null is to allow players to build their own empires, after all, and the ability to upgrade your space is an
important part of that: for symbolic reasons as much as hard mechanical advantages. It doesn't matter if no minor kingdom like this ever manages to get past sov 1, the possibility should still be there for people to aspire to.

It's also worth bearing in mind that the whole thing does become rather more plausible with external support, and could be a valid use-case. Client states have a long history, after all.

Secondly, while I do think there's potential in the idea of tradeoffs between high- and low sov, taking away the ability for some groups to get high sov indices at all starts to limit the available game design options in unfortunate ways. In particular, you can no longer tie the most powerful tools to high sov. Not only do shipyards have to be available in low sov, so do top-end Observatory Array and Gate features, and Admin and Market Hub options, otherwise you're right back to having a hard minimum on viable empire size. (Also, we can't jump to the conclusion that less effective access to capital ships won't be a problem. Current version capital ships won't be particularly useful, true, but CCP have made it clear that they still plan to make sure that caps and supercaps still have a role to play long-term.)

Don't get me wrong, I don't think there's anything wrong with the basic premise of encouraging raiding on the outskirts and discouraging it in the heartlands of empires. I just think that it needs to be implemented in a way that scales down further than this particular mechanic does. (Perhaps the difficulty of raiding could be directly dependant on the distance to the border, instead of linking sov level to distance and then difficulty to sov?)
FT Diomedes
The Graduates
#1850 - 2015-03-26 13:45:27 UTC
Mario Putzo wrote:



FT Diomedes wrote:


I find shooting structures in subcapitals to be very boring. I find it quite exciting when I have Dreadnoughts and/or Supercapitals, in Siege mode, and committed to the fight.


There is absolutely nothing stopping you from committing Capitals and Super Capitals to a fight in FozzieSov. Of course fighting ships and fighting structures is a much different risk, and most folks will shy away from fielding their big toys against things that will shoot back and actually try to kill them.


If you cannot be bothered to come attack my 2 billion ISK Dreadnoughts, who are stuck in siege mode and cannot run away at all, then perhaps you don't deserve to hold your space? See what I did there?

When people commit Dreadnoughts, they are throwing down a 2B ISK asset and saying, "come at me, bro." Fighting structures with Dreadnoughts requires way more balls than bringing your kiting fleet and orbiting some structure while waiting to see what shows up (and burning off grid if you cannot handle it).

You know full and well that unless I am part of a blob the size of CFC, there is no way I am able to field the five fleets of capital ships which would be required to successfully employ capitals in Trollsov. Not to mention the 400% time increase for using capitals. So, no, capitals don't have a sensible role in Trollsov.

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

FT Diomedes
The Graduates
#1851 - 2015-03-26 13:55:02 UTC
Aiyshimin wrote:
FT Diomedes wrote:
I posted this over in the main thread, but I am curious to see people's thoughts specifically as it relates to the issues associated with destroying things via Entosis.

One of the things that has bothered me the most about the proposed sovereignty system is that it allows small, non-committal entities to destroy valuable things without committing very much of their own to the fight. With destructible stations coming SoonTM, this is particularly troubling. In light of that, I suggest the following compromise.

In the proposed system, f I go into your system and run my Entosis link on your I-Hub and you do not stop me by chasing me away or blowing up my ship, it generates the standard timers as proposed by Fozzie. Forty-eight hours later, we have the multi-node Entosis capture point battles (or you blue ball me). If I win, I keep my stuff.

Under the proposed system, "If the attackers win a capture event for a Territorial Claim Unit or Infrastructure Hub, then the structure explodes and any alliance will be free to attempt deploying of their own replacement structures."

Now, here is my suggestion: "If the attackers win a capture event for a Territorial Claim Unit or Infrastructure Hub, then the structure becomes vulnerable to capture, theft, or destruction."

A vulnerable structure may be captured when any alliance/corporation runs one Entosis cycle on it, at any time (no prime time window). Once captured, the structure belongs to that alliance and becomes vulnerable again during the next day's prime time for the capturing alliance. The captured structure retains the indices and other advantages earned by the previous owner[s].

A vulnerable structure may be stolen when any player scoops the structure into the cargo hold of his ship. Structures too large to fit into a ship cannot be stolen. Once scooped, the structure loses the indices and other advantages earned by the previous owner[s].

A vulnerable structure can be destroyed at any time, provided someone is willing to shoot at it long enough or bring enough [big] ships to do the job quickly. While there are no reinforcement timers, the structures all have a significant amount of hit points. In the event of destruction, the structure loss mail will belong to the last alliance/corporation to own the structure.

I think that is a reasonable compromise. What say you?

Advantages over the current proposal:
1. It still gives attackers a way to make people undock and fight to defend their space.
2. It requires real commitment to actually destroy any structure.
3. It preserves a role for Dreadnoughts and other big ships in the destruction of structures.
4. It allows for more emergent gameplay and player interaction.
5. Assuming that some structures are the right size, it could allow for some interesting choices regarding Freighters and Jump Freighters.

I see no disadvantages of this system versus the current proposal.


Except it completely nullifies the change by once again creating the need to bring a massive blob of caps and supers for the final grind. Which is what you probably want to achieve anyway.




Not if you want to capture the space - only if you want to destroy it. It requires no additional effort if you want to capture and hold the space yourself. I edited my post to make that more clear.

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

rsantos
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#1852 - 2015-03-26 14:05:00 UTC
FT Diomedes wrote:
Mario Putzo wrote:



FT Diomedes wrote:


I find shooting structures in subcapitals to be very boring. I find it quite exciting when I have Dreadnoughts and/or Supercapitals, in Siege mode, and committed to the fight.


There is absolutely nothing stopping you from committing Capitals and Super Capitals to a fight in FozzieSov. Of course fighting ships and fighting structures is a much different risk, and most folks will shy away from fielding their big toys against things that will shoot back and actually try to kill them.


If you cannot be bothered to come attack my 2 billion ISK Dreadnoughts, who are stuck in siege mode and cannot run away at all, then perhaps you don't deserve to hold your space? See what I did there?

When people commit Dreadnoughts, they are throwing down a 2B ISK asset and saying, "come at me, bro." Fighting structures with Dreadnoughts requires way more balls than bringing your kiting fleet and orbiting some structure while waiting to see what shows up (and burning off grid if you cannot handle it).

You know full and well that unless I am part of a blob the size of CFC, there is no way I am able to field the five fleets of capital ships which would be required to successfully employ capitals in Trollsov. Not to mention the 400% time increase for using capitals. So, no, capitals don't have a sensible role in Trollsov.



I would just like to point that ANYTHING that ends up limiting mobility, hull choice or the ability to disengage, will make n+1 a must and in the end you will have your trollsov dreads. That what CFC wants! You just said it! No one will out blob you.
Soldarius
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#1853 - 2015-03-26 14:08:28 UTC
Rowells wrote:
Aureus Ahishatsu wrote:
I'll post this hear since I already mentioned it in the wormhole forums. how (if at all) are wh dwellers supposed to defend their structures if they can all be reinforced in the minimal time since we cannot claim sov? Wh dwellers aren't going to stick around if every structure can be re'fed in only 10 minutes.

good luck getting to the other capture points in the constellation.


Yah, Entosis Links and constellation-capture events are pretty pointless in w-space.

So I think the larger structures (equivalent to stations) will simply not be available in w-space, thus preservation the status quo there.

http://youtu.be/YVkUvmDQ3HY
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#1854 - 2015-03-26 16:50:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Alavaria Fera
rsantos wrote:
FT Diomedes wrote:
Mario Putzo wrote:

There is absolutely nothing stopping you from committing Capitals and Super Capitals to a fight in FozzieSov. Of course fighting ships and fighting structures is a much different risk, and most folks will shy away from fielding their big toys against things that will shoot back and actually try to kill them.

If you cannot be bothered to come attack my 2 billion ISK Dreadnoughts, who are stuck in siege mode and cannot run away at all, then perhaps you don't deserve to hold your space? See what I did there?

When people commit Dreadnoughts, they are throwing down a 2B ISK asset and saying, "come at me, bro." Fighting structures with Dreadnoughts requires way more balls than bringing your kiting fleet and orbiting some structure while waiting to see what shows up (and burning off grid if you cannot handle it).

You know full and well that unless I am part of a blob the size of CFC, there is no way I am able to field the five fleets of capital ships which would be required to successfully employ capitals in Trollsov. Not to mention the 400% time increase for using capitals. So, no, capitals don't have a sensible role in Trollsov.

I would just like to point that ANYTHING that ends up limiting mobility, hull choice or the ability to disengage, will make n+1 a must and in the end you will have your trollsov dreads. That what CFC wants! You just said it! No one will out blob you.

Don't worry, you can continue using the interceptors you do now, they will definitely have max mobility, what with fastest warp, fastest align, interdiction nullification.

This thread has already been used to convince ccp that the sov laser concept is the ideal instrument to shake up sov (you could just add even more fatigue**, but this is more elegant).

Any ship with big tank shouldn't be allowed to use the sov laser, it's an option that has the most value to blobbers (specifically blobbers with blobs of big-tank ships, ie: supercaps) and therefore shouldn't be allowed to exist.


**remember how much fatigue was a major success in shaking up null?

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 ?
Mario Putzo
#1855 - 2015-03-26 16:59:03 UTC
Alavaria Fera wrote:

**remember how much fatigue was a major success in shaking up null?


It was never intended to on its own.
Mario Putzo
#1856 - 2015-03-26 17:05:29 UTC  |  Edited by: Mario Putzo
FT Diomedes wrote:
Mario Putzo wrote:



FT Diomedes wrote:


I find shooting structures in subcapitals to be very boring. I find it quite exciting when I have Dreadnoughts and/or Supercapitals, in Siege mode, and committed to the fight.


There is absolutely nothing stopping you from committing Capitals and Super Capitals to a fight in FozzieSov. Of course fighting ships and fighting structures is a much different risk, and most folks will shy away from fielding their big toys against things that will shoot back and actually try to kill them.


If you cannot be bothered to come attack my 2 billion ISK Dreadnoughts, who are stuck in siege mode and cannot run away at all, then perhaps you don't deserve to hold your space? See what I did there?


Im not sure what your point is in response to what I wrote. You made a post asking to have capitals and super capitals to remain relevant in usage in contesting or defending sov. I simply pointed out there is nothing in the proposed changes that does not prevnt one to use these ships for that purpose. Sure they won't be the ones applying entosis links, but they will certainly still retain their strength in combat situations and offer greater support to fleets applying entosis links as well as force people to escalate if they wish to combat them reliably.

What it comes down to is the choice of the player...not a requirement to be involved in the party (as it currently is within current game mechanics)
Soldarius
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#1857 - 2015-03-26 19:22:59 UTC
Mario Putzo wrote:
Sure they won't be the ones applying entosis links


Who says?

http://youtu.be/YVkUvmDQ3HY
Cade Windstalker
#1858 - 2015-03-26 22:05:51 UTC
Specia1 K wrote:
Cade Windstalker wrote:


...the general consensus seems to be that an Interceptor is going to be at only slightly more risk of being blown up harassing Sov than it is sitting in station in Jita...


It is not the consensus in this thread. Disingenuous comments like this negate your whole argument and demonstrate your lack of experience and knowledge in this discussion.

You have made some good arguments in previous posts, btw.


I'm well aware of what I'm saying. The intent is to invite people to disagree with me. If no one does then my assumption seems to be correct, if someone does then discussion happens.

So far the balance of points seems to be in favor of Interceptors being nearly impossible to catch in the time it takes a T2 Entosis Link to cycle. This matches my personal experience chasing Interceptors. While it's certainly possible to drive them off grid if you can't kill them then the attacker is risking nothing more than time for their attack and that doesn't strike me as a fair trade for the annoyance value of "Your space-thingy is under attack! (x20)".

Since part of the stated goal of this Sov rebuild is to make Sov itself more of a driver of interesting content and less of a chore (ala, shoot structures in a cap fleet for four hours while you watch Netflix) I'd say this is at least a valid concern.

BTW, if it'll help I'll try to change "no one is saying" to "I haven't seen anyone saying" since that's what I meant. I literally have not seen anyone saying that letting an NPC AI defend sov from serious attempts to take it is a good idea.

FT Diomedes wrote:
I find shooting structures in subcapitals to be very boring. I find it quite exciting when I have Dreadnoughts and/or Supercapitals, in Siege mode, and committed to the fight.


Even when there is no actual "fight" going on, just a bunch of dreads and support ships grinding through a few dozen POSes (or whatever) in an evening?

If you've already beaten them for control of the beacons there's certainly not likely to be any response to you trying to blow up whatever you've just captured.

FT Diomedes wrote:

You know full and well that unless I am part of a blob the size of CFC, there is no way I am able to field the five fleets of capital ships which would be required to successfully employ capitals in Trollsov. Not to mention the 400% time increase for using capitals. So, no, capitals don't have a sensible role in Trollsov.


Capitals are also going to be rebalanced because the majority opinion among the player base seems to be that they're in a very bad place and have been for years. A big part of this being the dependence of the current system on large fleets of Capitals and Super Capitals.

Also there's no increase in time required to capture something with an Entosis Link (assuming something else does the initial cycle anyway), the cycle time just gets longer, exposing you to more risk.

Mario Putzo wrote:
They are risking something, and perhaps even more of an investment, spending time playing chicken and time is the single most valuable commodity in EVE, as it is in life. Just because you don't agree on the value of the risk does not mean there is not risk.


Even by that metric they're causing the defenders to risk more than the attackers, since a single Interceptor still requires someone to come deal with him, which means the defenders need to rally up and go chase him off, thus wasting their time as well. If a single Inty manages to pull two people away from ratting he's probably wasted more of someone's time than he's spent trolling them.

If his entire goal is to waste peoples' time and troll them then he hasn't even risked or wasted anything. If he pulls someone off to chase him off, win. If he gets the timer finished, also a win. Win/win situation.

And yes, my entire point here is that I don't agree with the apparent level of risk to the Inty pilot. Other people may disagree.
Cade Windstalker
#1859 - 2015-03-26 22:07:56 UTC
Mario Putzo wrote:
Having a Random 4 hour window is a poor design, because it allows a group of people to essentially force people to stand around with their thumb in their ass doing nothing for 4 hours (if they choose to defend an asset). As I said earlier time is the most valuable commodity in the game, and having an unadjustable 4 hour window where nothing at all could happen is bad. Who wants to sit around for 4 hours doing nothing. No one.


I'm not sure why you would have to sit around sitting on your thumbs for 4 hours. This 4 hours window is supposed to be set when your player-base is the most active. If you're utilizing all of your space then there should be people in most if not all of your systems doing whatever they want, which means you'll know when a hostile incursion occurs you'll have some idea of numbers, and even if neither of the above are true there's an Alliance-wide mail that will go out saying "Yo! Guys! Space-thingy is being Entosis'd over here and has X time left!" at which point you'll have between 10 and 40 minutes to respond. With full occupancy around 30-40 minutes at the least. More than enough time to get everyone together into a fleet, fit up the ships, go to the bathroom, and go kick invader arse.
Zeus Sparta
State War Academy
Caldari State
#1860 - 2015-03-26 22:25:27 UTC
Another possible addition or a whole separate part is the ability to convert offline Control Towers. Would also help clear up a lot of unused moons too.