These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Cade Windstalker
#161 - 2015-04-03 04:54:36 UTC
Rowells wrote:
Alavaria Fera wrote:

So you're consuming stront for the link and LO for the cyno, sounds balanced

Hope the cargo crew is up to game.

"which container has the Strontium, we need it ASAP!"
"Uhhhh, I think this one. Here, take it quick."
*empties container into module fuel port*
"Wait does that say 'Exotic Dancers' on the side?"


CCP should do this for April Fools next year. Change the item portrait for all charges and fuel to Exotic Dancers. Lol

But I digress, I think the fuel requirement is fine so far, but we won't know for sure until we get a chance to test this in practical terms. It's possible the fuel requirements may need a small bump, but even doubling them to 2 could have a significant impact on the progress of a long fight.

IMO better for them to low-ball it and have the fuel not matter too much, since it's not hard-stopping any obvious problems that I can see, rather than have the fuel completely grind Sov Warfare to a halt until CCP can patch in a fix.
Lugh Crow-Slave
#162 - 2015-04-03 05:21:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Lugh Crow-Slave
Quote:
High Slot module, limit of one per ship



would it break anything to change this to


only one can be active


letting pilots chose to fit two but only use one at a time similar to ecm bursts?


EDIT:


to be honest im not sure who would use this but it would give more options and accomplish the same goal as only one per ship
Cade Windstalker
#163 - 2015-04-03 08:12:28 UTC
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
Quote:
High Slot module, limit of one per ship



would it break anything to change this to


only one can be active


letting pilots chose to fit two but only use one at a time similar to ecm bursts?


EDIT:


to be honest im not sure who would use this but it would give more options and accomplish the same goal as only one per ship


There's no point to this except to abuse the weight increase for bumping or something of the sort.
yogizh
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#164 - 2015-04-03 11:02:23 UTC

Same as with Phoebe, masses of ceptor cowards stopped cheering cause they found out that the point of these changes is
not making the life of the most competent organizations in game into living hell
.

Entosis link makes sence now and will bring actual pvp into sov warfare. If you can't form at least a small fleet to take one system,
you should consider a different EVE career than null sov.
Frigates should be kept as support ships, not a tool for trolls that have no interest in fighting for sov space. It should require dedication and effort to have shiny things in a game. I believe that sov change at this point is on a good path to this.
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#165 - 2015-04-03 11:25:10 UTC
I don't see any reason to make capital ships have a longer duration. Sure, they're more difficult to shoot down, but they're also more difficult to get into position and a lot more valuable of a target. It's not like shooting a linking subcap is going to reset the timer for that side, in fact it likely won't even stop their timer since many forces will use multiple entosis links on a single structure.

Yes, an entire fleet of dreadnoughts and carriers will easily win a link. Is that a bad thing? I say we should have more reasons to put capital ships in the line of fire, not less.

FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."

Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."

Iroquoiss Pliskin
9B30FF Labs
#166 - 2015-04-03 12:58:26 UTC
MeBiatch wrote:

So does this mean you support mu concept?


Is gud.
Emmy Mnemonic
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#167 - 2015-04-03 13:43:46 UTC
rsantos wrote:
The dirty bloblers have won! Hope you all have fun with the new sov laser cyno fitted to your carriers in 10% TiDi!



Well, I agree with you! Entosis-mechanisms gets rid of blobbing to do hit-point damage, but introduces blobbing to control the battlefield when entosising sov-structures. Status quo. And carriers? I can easily see Supers do this - can't be jammed, difficult for smaller groups like yours to kill them, they can ECM-burst both your DPS and logis. And the defenders have all the time in the world, they're not in a hurry.

So, yes, there will be blobbing again. Sadly.

But then blobbing has been the case all the time, entosis or no entosis - to gain control over the battlefield, you will need to blob in one way or another. Killing a ratter - conrol the battlefield by dropping and blob him with SBs, Recons and Black Ops. Small annoying 10-man Swedish pvp-gang in cruisers in Fountain - run away or blob them with Battleships. Usually run away though :-)

Ex ex-CEO of Svea Rike [.S.R.]

1Robert McNamara1
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#168 - 2015-04-03 15:07:34 UTC
Oh man, cruiser sized AND fuel required? Awesome.

The mass penalties are a nice touch. It means Amarr gain a slight boost due to how you guys manipulated their power to weight ratios to make plates feel better. I'm a fan of that too.

I feel this means people looking to entosis things will have to bring more than their whimsy, thank you.
Ncc 1709
Fusion Enterprises Ltd
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#169 - 2015-04-03 15:17:41 UTC
I think the 1 stront per cycle is too low
it should be 10, meaning if you intend on taking multiple systems you need stront haulers with you.
Agent Unknown
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#170 - 2015-04-03 15:25:47 UTC
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:
I don't see any reason to make capital ships have a longer duration. Sure, they're more difficult to shoot down, but they're also more difficult to get into position and a lot more valuable of a target. It's not like shooting a linking subcap is going to reset the timer for that side, in fact it likely won't even stop their timer since many forces will use multiple entosis links on a single structure.

Yes, an entire fleet of dreadnoughts and carriers will easily win a link. Is that a bad thing? I say we should have more reasons to put capital ships in the line of fire, not less.


Something something :suddenly supers:
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
#171 - 2015-04-03 16:45:00 UTC
Agent Unknown wrote:
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:
I don't see any reason to make capital ships have a longer duration. Sure, they're more difficult to shoot down, but they're also more difficult to get into position and a lot more valuable of a target. It's not like shooting a linking subcap is going to reset the timer for that side, in fact it likely won't even stop their timer since many forces will use multiple entosis links on a single structure.

Yes, an entire fleet of dreadnoughts and carriers will easily win a link. Is that a bad thing? I say we should have more reasons to put capital ships in the line of fire, not less.


Something something :suddenly supers:


How about the e link will make ewar immune ships vulnerable to ewar while to module is active. You really going to use your super with an elink if you csnt br rr and you can be jammed?

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

Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.

Iroquoiss Pliskin
9B30FF Labs
#172 - 2015-04-03 16:45:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Iroquoiss Pliskin
Agent Unknown wrote:
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:
I don't see any reason to make capital ships have a longer duration. Sure, they're more difficult to shoot down, but they're also more difficult to get into position and a lot more valuable of a target. It's not like shooting a linking subcap is going to reset the timer for that side, in fact it likely won't even stop their timer since many forces will use multiple entosis links on a single structure.

Yes, an entire fleet of dreadnoughts and carriers will easily win a link. Is that a bad thing? I say we should have more reasons to put capital ships in the line of fire, not less.


Something something :suddenly supers:


Always and forever to the grave. ♥ Bigger Better ♥ Sub-caps will be sub-caps ♥ Peasants will be peasants ♥

Don't ye raise ye voice against the LORD, lest you want to suffer CAPITAL punishment. Evil

MeBiatch wrote:

How about the e link will make ewar immune ships vulnerable to ewar while to module is active. You really going to use your super with an elink if you csnt br rr and you can be jammed?


How about no? Redundant levels of complexity are not a way to go.

Eve will sort out which ships are best for FozzieSov capture mechanics.

Even CCP don't know which shiptype/class that is going to be. Blink
Agent Unknown
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#173 - 2015-04-03 16:51:33 UTC
MeBiatch wrote:
Agent Unknown wrote:
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:
I don't see any reason to make capital ships have a longer duration. Sure, they're more difficult to shoot down, but they're also more difficult to get into position and a lot more valuable of a target. It's not like shooting a linking subcap is going to reset the timer for that side, in fact it likely won't even stop their timer since many forces will use multiple entosis links on a single structure.

Yes, an entire fleet of dreadnoughts and carriers will easily win a link. Is that a bad thing? I say we should have more reasons to put capital ships in the line of fire, not less.


Something something :suddenly supers:


How about the e link will make ewar immune ships vulnerable to ewar while to module is active. You really going to use your super with an elink if you csnt br rr and you can be jammed?


Well, there's also controlling the grid and alphaing anything off the field with a deployed slowcat fleet to support said super that's using the e-link.

Encouraging the use of capitals to gain an advantage only contributes to the n+1 problem. If supers can be used, then alliances that can field enough supers/capital support to contest all the beacons will be at a great advantage. Granted, even with the penalty you can still do this, but at least it's discouraged.
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
#174 - 2015-04-03 16:57:49 UTC
Emmy Mnemonic wrote:
rsantos wrote:
The dirty bloblers have won! Hope you all have fun with the new sov laser cyno fitted to your carriers in 10% TiDi!



Well, I agree with you! Entosis-mechanisms gets rid of blobbing to do hit-point damage, but introduces blobbing to control the battlefield when entosising sov-structures. Status quo. And carriers? I can easily see Supers do this - can't be jammed, difficult for smaller groups like yours to kill them, they can ECM-burst both your DPS and logis. And the defenders have all the time in the world, they're not in a hurry.

So, yes, there will be blobbing again. Sadly.

But then blobbing has been the case all the time, entosis or no entosis - to gain control over the battlefield, you will need to blob in one way or another. Killing a ratter - conrol the battlefield by dropping and blob him with SBs, Recons and Black Ops. Small annoying 10-man Swedish pvp-gang in cruisers in Fountain - run away or blob them with Battleships. Usually run away though :-)


I think ccp understand that there will always be blobing its human nature. What they are attempting to do is make the blob go from one grid in one system to multiple grids over a constellation. This should help server load but i fear will end up with multiple 30 min black loading screens which will just **** people off.

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

Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.

MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
#175 - 2015-04-03 17:03:45 UTC
Agent Unknown wrote:
MeBiatch wrote:
Agent Unknown wrote:
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:
I don't see any reason to make capital ships have a longer duration. Sure, they're more difficult to shoot down, but they're also more difficult to get into position and a lot more valuable of a target. It's not like shooting a linking subcap is going to reset the timer for that side, in fact it likely won't even stop their timer since many forces will use multiple entosis links on a single structure.

Yes, an entire fleet of dreadnoughts and carriers will easily win a link. Is that a bad thing? I say we should have more reasons to put capital ships in the line of fire, not less.


Something something :suddenly supers:


How about the e link will make ewar immune ships vulnerable to ewar while to module is active. You really going to use your super with an elink if you csnt br rr and you can be jammed?


Well, there's also controlling the grid and alphaing anything off the field with a deployed slowcat fleet to support said super that's using the e-link.

Encouraging the use of capitals to gain an advantage only contributes to the n+1 problem. If supers can be used, then alliances that can field enough supers/capital support to contest all the beacons will be at a great advantage. Granted, even with the penalty you can still do this, but at least it's discouraged.


all true but now remember there are 10 capture annoms in tge constellation you have to capture. Lets say cfc has taken 9 tgat means they only need one more to take the system. So now 5 new capture annoms have appeared. As n3 which one will you defend with carriers and supers? If you start jumping around willy nilly your jump fatigue willbgo threw the roof and if you split your firces equal tgen pl will jump in on a small group of supers and dd them to death.

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

Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.

Iroquoiss Pliskin
9B30FF Labs
#176 - 2015-04-03 17:10:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Iroquoiss Pliskin
MeBiatch wrote:
...which one will you defend with carriers and supers? If you start jumping around willy nilly your jump fatigue willbgo threw the roof and if you split your firces equal tgen pl will jump in on a small group of supers and dd them to death.


Yespls. Big smileBig smileBig smile

Dear Lord Almighty Bob, Make It Happen So!

Split them up, carve them up, demoralise with CAOD... Terrorise the renters one system at a time... Plant the seeds of paranoia, awox and insurrection... Eat... Eat into the Heart of Deklein, Delve, Catch and every other region.

New Eden will bathe in Blood and righteous Fire, as Coalitions and Alliances begin to implode, vultures and hyenas will take what lies within reach. Twisted
Shodan Of Citadel
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#177 - 2015-04-03 18:34:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Shodan Of Citadel
250km range on T2 Link, but what if you damp the ship or it moves off grid? Please set to 150km range -where most combat is.

Penalty -counteracts bubble immunity when fit.

Increase size of mobile depot so it can't fit in a ceptor.
Rowells
Blackwater USA Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#178 - 2015-04-03 18:36:17 UTC
Shodan Of Citadel wrote:
250km range on T2 Link, but what if you damp the ship or it moves off grid? Please set to 150km range -where most combat is.

Penalty -counteracts bubble immunity when fit.

if they break lock or go offgrid then they out of luck. 250km allows for all possible iterations of range available to larger ships.
Mario Putzo
#179 - 2015-04-03 18:37:39 UTC
WOOO Go go Golems and Ravens!
Hairpins Blueprint
The Northerners
Northern Coalition.
#180 - 2015-04-03 19:48:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Hairpins Blueprint
All Hail Ethosis Rifter Bolb Lol

I like the statsCool it makes me happy you can't fit T2 on frigs.