These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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 Part 2

First post First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Wanda Fayne
#121 - 2015-04-02 16:23:53 UTC
Ned Thomas wrote:
Wanda Fayne wrote:


The Tactical Destroyers look to be the smallest hull that isn't gimped into uselessness with the t2 Entosis link. They have the targeting range and speed modes to be useful. Still going to give up that firepower though to make it work. I hope all D3's are released in time for these changes to be worked out.



With the power grid nerfs for the Svipul and Confessor, and assuming that the Jackdaw and Hecate will have similar PG stats, then they'll need to be quite gimped to fit a T2 E-link.


Until they are all on the table we can only speculate. In any event, they will need some gimping for the T2 link. It is the advantage of the mode switches (Sharpshooter/Propulsion) which will allow them to be (hopefully) useable. Nice big cargo bay for the fuel though.

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

  • - "hub humping station gamey neutral logi warspam wankery" -Ralph King-Griffin-
M1k3y Koontz
House of Musashi
Stay Feral
#122 - 2015-04-02 16:24:45 UTC
Zazad Antollare wrote:
1 stront per cycle is a bit low, should be a minimum of 10.


3 m3 per cycle, you need up to 21 cycles to RF a well occupied system with a T2 entosis link, thats 63m3 right there. Count in cap boosters to keep that local tank alive in the face of neuts, and that's going to be one packed cargo bay.

One stront isn't bad, 30m3 per cycle (times a minimum of four cycles if the system is entirely undefended and you're using a T1 link) would be out of reach of combat ships. Aside from capitals. Which is the opposite of the point of this change.

How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp.
M1k3y Koontz
House of Musashi
Stay Feral
#123 - 2015-04-02 16:32:23 UTC
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:
So ... still replacing the satisfaction of shooting the enemies' stuff with waving a magic wand at it?

Still think the psychology of Null Sec players is going to mesh well with Factional Warfare type mechanics?

Roll


If you don't like it you can leave nullsec. I, for one, am happy to no longer spend hours watching a cloud of drones tick HP down on a structure that nobody can be arsed to defend.

How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp.
Anhenka
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#124 - 2015-04-02 16:32:50 UTC
M1k3y Koontz wrote:
Zazad Antollare wrote:
1 stront per cycle is a bit low, should be a minimum of 10.


3 m3 per cycle, you need up to 21 cycles to RF a well occupied system with a T2 entosis link, thats 63m3 right there. Count in cap boosters to keep that local tank alive in the face of neuts, and that's going to be one packed cargo bay.

One stront isn't bad, 30m3 per cycle (times a minimum of four cycles if the system is entirely undefended and you're using a T1 link) would be out of reach of combat ships. Aside from capitals. Which is the opposite of the point of this change.


Frontline systems are unlikely to be "well occupied". I wouldn't expect the typical system being fought over to be more than 5/2/1 on Strat/Mil/Indy.

Calculations based on 5/5/5 are incredibly unrealistic if that's what you were using.

I do agree that 10 is a bit much, I'd say go with 4 for the t1 version and 3 for the t2.
Cade Windstalker
#125 - 2015-04-02 16:52:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Cade Windstalker
Anhenka wrote:
Frontline systems are unlikely to be "well occupied". I wouldn't expect the typical system being fought over to be more than 5/2/1 on Strat/Mil/Indy.

Calculations based on 5/5/5 are incredibly unrealistic if that's what you were using.

I do agree that 10 is a bit much, I'd say go with 4 for the t1 version and 3 for the t2.


We can't say for sure that that's going to be unrealistic. Also the emphasis from the mechanics seems to be on attacking and taking entire constellations.

Plus there could be entire ops and gameplay aspects that arise around the idea of fortifying your border systems and making them harder to take by boosting those indices. At the end of the day its up to the owners of a system how high they get their indicies and therefore up to them how hard the system is to defend, so theory crafting with higher timer levels isn't at all unrealistic so long as it's not the only thing people focus on.
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
#126 - 2015-04-02 16:53:51 UTC
xttz wrote:
What about size and tech differences? There's enough new stats to add some extra trade-offs.

Small Entosis Link I:

  • Requires Infomorph Psychology 1
  • +250,000 mass when online
  • 5 Minute Cycle Time, 25km range
  • 10 PWG, 1 CPU
  • 50 Capacitor per cycle
  • Consumes 10 Stront per cycle
  • Cost ~20m

    • Small Entosis Link II:
  • Requires Infomorph Psychology 4
  • +225,000 mass when online
  • 5 Minute Cycle Time, 35km range
  • 12 PWG, 1 CPU
  • 45 Capacitor per cycle
  • Consumes 8 Stront per cycle
  • Cost ~50m


Standard Entosis Link I:

  • Requires Infomorph Psychology 2
  • +1,000,000 mass when online
  • 2 Minute Cycle Time, 200km range
  • 100 PWG, 10 CPU
  • 500 Capacitor per cycle
  • Consumes 4 Stront per cycle
  • Cost ~80m

    • Standard Entosis Link II:
  • Requires Infomorph Psychology 4
  • +900,000 mass when online
  • 2 Minute Cycle Time, 250km range
  • 120 PWG, 10 CPU
  • 450 Capacitor per cycle
  • Consumes 3 Stront per cycle
  • Cost ~120m


I like this. Wouldn't mind 3 sizes small mid large maybe even xl for caps. What would be interesting too is if a capture event caused small medium large and xl sized targets that can only be hacked by tge corresponding elink size. So only
A small link can capture a small capture tower and so on... maybe it could be linear so first ypu have to capture small tgen mid tgen large and the 10th capture can only be done with an xl link from a capital ship.

There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... CCP Goliath wrote:

Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.
SilentAsTheGrave
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#127 - 2015-04-02 17:00:19 UTC
MeBiatch wrote:
xttz wrote:
What about size and tech differences? There's enough new stats to add some extra trade-offs.

Small Entosis Link I:

  • Requires Infomorph Psychology 1
  • +250,000 mass when online
  • 5 Minute Cycle Time, 25km range
  • 10 PWG, 1 CPU
  • 50 Capacitor per cycle
  • Consumes 10 Stront per cycle
  • Cost ~20m

    • Small Entosis Link II:
  • Requires Infomorph Psychology 4
  • +225,000 mass when online
  • 5 Minute Cycle Time, 35km range
  • 12 PWG, 1 CPU
  • 45 Capacitor per cycle
  • Consumes 8 Stront per cycle
  • Cost ~50m


Standard Entosis Link I:

  • Requires Infomorph Psychology 2
  • +1,000,000 mass when online
  • 2 Minute Cycle Time, 200km range
  • 100 PWG, 10 CPU
  • 500 Capacitor per cycle
  • Consumes 4 Stront per cycle
  • Cost ~80m

    • Standard Entosis Link II:
  • Requires Infomorph Psychology 4
  • +900,000 mass when online
  • 2 Minute Cycle Time, 250km range
  • 120 PWG, 10 CPU
  • 450 Capacitor per cycle
  • Consumes 3 Stront per cycle
  • Cost ~120m


I like this. Wouldn't mind 3 sizes small mid large maybe even xl for caps. What would be interesting too is if a capture event caused small medium large and xl sized targets that can only be hacked by tge corresponding elink size. So only
A small link can capture a small capture tower and so on... maybe it could be linear so first ypu have to capture small tgen mid tgen large and the 10th capture can only be done with an xl link from a capital ship.

That goes against the idea of this new sov system not requiring specific ships or fits to work.
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#128 - 2015-04-02 17:03:29 UTC
I think the powergrid and CPU requirements for both Entosis links should be increased even further such that you can't run a T1 Entosis link on anything smaller than a destroyer and a T2 Entosis link on anything smaller than a cruiser.

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Wanda Fayne
#129 - 2015-04-02 17:11:37 UTC
Arthur Aihaken wrote:
I think the powergrid and CPU requirements for both Entosis links should be increased even further such that you can't run a T1 Entosis link on anything smaller than a destroyer and a T2 Entosis link on anything smaller than a cruiser.


That's against the stated design goals.

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

  • - "hub humping station gamey neutral logi warspam wankery" -Ralph King-Griffin-
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
#130 - 2015-04-02 17:17:05 UTC
SilentAsTheGrave wrote:

There have been some who have been saying this new Entosis Link will be a boost for bumping Machariels in high sec. The way I understand it, you need a valid target for the Entosis Link to activate to get the mass increase. There will not be any of these capture points in high sec so it is a moot point, correct?



Just online, not active.

Same way your Cap is gimped by a MWD, regardless of if you're using it or not.


Of course, for a Mach, it's a 1% bonus to mass. So that's not a huge deal

Woo! CSM XI!

Fuzzwork Enterprises

Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter
GeeShizzle MacCloud
#131 - 2015-04-02 17:18:46 UTC
although its not within the realms of any kind of troll sov idea, i do still think that the t2 entosis link + mmjd can make for some confusing ninja situations where a bc or group of bc's will seemingly disappear mid entosis cycle after cycling their mmjds but still be on close range dscan.
Andy Koraka
State War Academy
Caldari State
#132 - 2015-04-02 17:22:38 UTC
I would really prefer that the T2 Entosis link to have a 150km range on it.
SilentAsTheGrave
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#133 - 2015-04-02 17:32:08 UTC
Andy Koraka wrote:
I would really prefer that the T2 Entosis link to have a 150km range on it.

Why?
SFM Hobb3s
Perkone
Caldari State
#134 - 2015-04-02 17:49:38 UTC
I wouldn't really be too troubled with additional balancing beyond the original specs. I'm all for releasing as is/was, and letting the cards fall where they may. What's the worst that could happen? A handful of trollceptors take the sov away from a coalition that prefers to 'deny content'? Not a big loss if you ask me. Hell, if it causes all the coalitions and alliances to crumble that's fine. Balance it then. Then whatever comes out of the ashes of New Eden will be much better than what we have now (referring to donuts here)
GeeShizzle MacCloud
#135 - 2015-04-02 18:43:19 UTC
cause of course being in black legion a sovless entity that has always been thwarted by powerful sov owning entities, your view isnt coloured at all.

You have no interests in sov or the mechanics of sov being balanced. and of course would like to see sov entities burn because of what you fail to do as an organisation; why the hell not push on the forums to achieve the objective through game mechanics right?
Jenshae Chiroptera
#136 - 2015-04-02 18:52:42 UTC
I have been wondering why they don't just make disposable "Hacking Structures" that you repair and shoot?

That effectively draws the battle lines.

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.
Daide Vondrichnov
French Drop-O-Panache
Snuffed Out
#137 - 2015-04-02 18:54:29 UTC
GeeShizzle MacCloud wrote:
cause of course being in black legion a sovless entity that has always been thwarted by powerful sov owning entities, your view isnt coloured at all.

You have no interests in sov or the mechanics of sov being balanced. and of course would like to see sov entities burn because of what you fail to do as an organisation; why the hell not push on the forums to achieve the objective through game mechanics right?


No mad pls.
Lena Lazair
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#138 - 2015-04-02 19:45:08 UTC
I assume this means the idea of a deployable e-link instead of a high-slot module is right out. Are there specific reasons why deployables aren't being considered for this?
Anhenka
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#139 - 2015-04-02 19:48:32 UTC
Lena Lazair wrote:
I assume this means the idea of a deployable e-link instead of a high-slot module is right out. Are there specific reasons why deployables aren't being considered for this?


Because "Effective control of the grid" and "Not even on the grid" are two entirely contradictory ideas.
Alexandros T'dra
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#140 - 2015-04-02 19:50:14 UTC
"Consumes 1 Stront per cycle"

Seems a rather low amount at just a mere 3 cubic meters. To prevent trolllogoffs behind the lines, increase this amount 10 fold. 30 cubic meters would give a frigate at least 8 to 10 cycles.