These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Iroquoiss Pliskin
9B30FF Labs
#181 - 2015-04-03 19:53:31 UTC  |  Edited by: ISD Dorrim Barstorlode
Hairpins Blueprint wrote:
All Hail Ethosis Rifter Bolb Lol

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


That's pretty gud that even roaming Rifters can disrupt unprotected assets, buffer zones and/or space.

No ASCII art, thanks! -ISD Dorrim Barstorlode
Daide Vondrichnov
French Drop-O-Panache
Snuffed Out
#182 - 2015-04-03 22:00:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Daide Vondrichnov
Wait and see your capital blob road for the 10 winning nodes, and watch their road bulled everywhere...

Then if they blob on a station timer, just go to another system and links it while they are bulled 5 jumps out, or put a inhibitor and watch them get bulled 250km from you, They can still target the station ? Np Damp them.

They have a subcap blob ? Deal with it, and keep harrassing them until they lose members and get them where they don't expect you to.
Swiftstrike1
Swiftstrike Incorporated
#183 - 2015-04-04 01:54:39 UTC  |  Edited by: Swiftstrike1
I get that you want the emphasis to be on the fight, not on the capture mechanic itself... but using the Entosis module seems to make you so incredibly vulnerable that you can't realistically consider using it until the fight is over!

This reduces the entire Entosis Link mechanic to a mere formality that must be attended to after the fight.

Hardly sounds like exciting new gameplay to me... more like paperwork.


I do have an alternative mechanic in mind...
Alternative Mechanic wrote:

  1. All structures have their resistances increased to 99% and HP reduced to maintain current EHP
  2. Entosis Link modules reduce those resistances with each successful cycle instead of capturing
  3. Structures can still be reinforced/destroyed without Entosis Links, but it is highly impractical
  4. If Entosis Link with target structure is lost for even just 1 second... resistances instantly return to 99%

What are the primary benefits of this hybrid Entosis-Grind mechanic?

  • Trollceptors capturing stuff with Entosis Links is not just mitigated, it is annihilated because they simply lack the DPS
  • Removes the whole "who are the attackers and who are the defenders" mess. Either there is an Entosis Link being used on the structure or there is not. It doesn't matter who is using it.

  • Imagine a 50 million EHP structure that might ordinarily take an hour to grind and destroy... then imagine you reduce its resistances from 99% to 0% using an Entosis Link while you're busy shooting at it. Its EHP drops from 50 million to just 500k. Your Entosis Link just saved you a hell of a lot of time and made it damn hard for any defenders to rep the thing. That makes it an invaluable asset, but at the same time... you didn't really need it. It would have taken a lot longer and been a lot harder without it, but it still would have been possible.

    Casual Incursion runner & Faction Warfare grunt, ex-Wormholer, ex-Nullbear.

    Cade Windstalker
    #184 - 2015-04-04 02:21:21 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.


    Because part of the point of these changes is to move sov away from "Capital and Super Capital blobs Online". If huge numbers of caps and super-caps are the only way to take Sov then it's very very difficult for a new group to take and hold Sov space without the help of (read, being carried by) one of the existing super-power blocs.

    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?


    Also not necessary, since you're looking at a continuous window of *twenty minutes* for a Capital or Super Capital to make any progress toward the timer, unless they blow up during that time (in which case their progress is time minus ten minutes, minimum zero). A prepared fleet of sub-caps can nuke a Carrier or Dreadnaught easily in that amount of time, and a capital fleet that doesn't suddenly have a 20 minute Triage/Siege timer will just laugh as they blap the enemy capitals off the field. Making them subject to E-War isn't really necessary given these factors, since compared to the profitability of even a single system in Null having a Dreadnaught or two isn't much of a cost.
    Cade Windstalker
    #185 - 2015-04-04 02:37:07 UTC
    Swiftstrike1 wrote:
    I get that you want the emphasis to be on the fight, not on the capture mechanic itself... but using the Entosis module seems to make you so incredibly vulnerable that you can't realistically consider using it until the fight is over!

    This reduces the entire Entosis Link mechanic to a mere formality that must be attended to after the fight.

    Hardly sounds like exciting new gameplay to me... more like paperwork.


    I do have an alternative mechanic in mind...
    Alternative Mechanic wrote:

    1. All structures have their resistances increased to 99% and HP reduced to maintain current EHP
    2. Entosis Link modules reduce those resistances with each successful cycle instead of capturing
    3. Structures can still be reinforced/destroyed without Entosis Links, but it is highly impractical
    4. If Entosis Link with target structure is lost for even just 1 second... resistances instantly return to 99%

    What are the primary benefits of this hybrid Entosis-Grind mechanic?

  • Trollceptors capturing stuff with Entosis Links is not just mitigated, it is annihilated because they simply lack the DPS
  • Removes the whole "who are the attackers and who are the defenders" mess. Either there is an Entosis Link being used on the structure or there is not. It doesn't matter who is using it.

  • Imagine a 50 million EHP structure that might ordinarily take an hour to grind and destroy... then imagine you reduce its resistances from 99% to 0% using an Entosis Link while you're busy shooting at it. Its EHP drops from 50 million to just 500k. Your Entosis Link just saved you a hell of a lot of time and made it damn hard for any defenders to rep the thing. That makes it an invaluable asset, but at the same time... you didn't really need it. It would have taken a lot longer and been a lot harder without it, but it still would have been possible.


    We don't need structure grinding to make a comeback. Even if you bring Structures down to 0% resistances they still have a massive amount of EHP and it's impractical to kill them without either a massive sub-cap blob or a slightly less massive capital fleet. For reference an Infrastructure hub has 5 million structure, 75 million shields, and 112.5 million Armor. That's just shy of 200 million total EHP even at 0% resistances, and would take 21 Moros Dreadnaughts two full Siege timers to grind through. Over 213 total minutes of Siege Mode.

    While a large Null fight will probably not have either side capturing the structure until they actively control the grid that is A. not necessarily a bad thing and B. not significantly different from how things go now. If there are enemy Caps on grid you shoot the caps first, you don't keep blapping away at the tower that's going to take several more rounds of Siege to die/hit the next timer threshold.

    Now, in smaller fights, like in Low-Sec, Wormholes, or anywhere else where an Entosis Link might be used that isn't a large Null fight, as well as in a smaller-scale Null fight like you might see in some of the less desirable space (Providence anyone?) this doesn't hold up. In these smaller fights it's possible and practical for fleets to field ships that can survive for multiple cycles, like Dictors, Command Ships, T3 Cruisers, or Capitals.

    In the larger fights it's likely that the time when people are ticking down the timer will not be time spent completely idle. The FC will have to check his intel, see if the enemy is abandoning the fight or regrouping, and then react to that info. With a 30-40 minute timer just to take a single Node then the enemy is going to have plenty of time to re-ship, move forces around between the various nodes, and keep fighting back. It's quite possible that in a close fight a single Node could change hands multiple times before finally being closed out by one side or the other.
    ISD Decoy
    ISD Community Communications Liaisons
    #186 - 2015-04-04 02:39:17 UTC
    Quote:
    5. Trolling is prohibited.

    Trolling is a defined as a post that is deliberately designed for the purpose of angering and insulting other players in an attempt to incite retaliation or an emotional response. Posts of this nature are disruptive, often abusive, and do not contribute to the sense of community that CCP promote.

    I have removed a trolling post and one quoting it.

    ISD Decoy

    Captain

    Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)

    Interstellar Services Department

    Alavaria Fera
    GoonWaffe
    #187 - 2015-04-04 03:06:03 UTC
    Swiftstrike1 wrote:
    I get that you want the emphasis to be on the fight, not on the capture mechanic itself... but using the Entosis module seems to make you so incredibly vulnerable that you can't realistically consider using it until the fight is over!

    This reduces the entire Entosis Link mechanic to a mere formality that must be attended to after the fight.

    So, after someone has effective military control?

    Oh snap, gotta rethink

    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 ?

    Nevyn Auscent
    Broke Sauce
    #188 - 2015-04-04 04:07:33 UTC
    Damnit Goons! Making me like your post! :P
    Sounds like CCP have this one looking like a potential concept then, though we'll have to see how the Meta actually plays out and I still have huge concerns over the density issue that you simply can't have a substantial number of people living in the same system in Null (Unless you are miners).
    baltec1
    Bat Country
    Pandemic Horde
    #189 - 2015-04-04 08:12:46 UTC
    Nevyn Auscent wrote:
    Damnit Goons! Making me like your post! :P
    Sounds like CCP have this one looking like a potential concept then, though we'll have to see how the Meta actually plays out and I still have huge concerns over the density issue that you simply can't have a substantial number of people living in the same system in Null (Unless you are miners).


    See structures for a fix to this. (hint: mission agents in sov space)
    Cade Windstalker
    #190 - 2015-04-04 08:25:39 UTC
    Something just occurred to me that's rather concerning, and it deals with the constellation-wide Node spawning. In the middle of a major campaign it's not outside the realm of possibility that a Constellation could be contested with both sides owning part of the area. These new structures look to offer a small but still significant home-field advantage to the side that controls the system, so having all of the nodes spawn in one side's territory through RNG would not be desirable.

    Would it be possible to, at least at the start of the contest, push the nodes toward an even distribution around the constellation so that a bad set of dice rolls don't massively bias the fight?

    I doubt it will happen often but the one time it does during a major fight the forums will light on fire (again).

    Not sure what a good distribution method would be, except that by system owner would invite potential abuse of mechanics. Maybe something that lowers the chance of successive spawns in the same system of the same node, or something of the sort. Maybe also bias it initially toward systems that don't have a system with a node adjacent either, so most configurations of constellation default to a nice even spread to start.
    Swiftstrike1
    Swiftstrike Incorporated
    #191 - 2015-04-04 13:44:53 UTC
    Cade Windstalker wrote:
    We don't need structure grinding to make a comeback. Even if you bring Structures down to 0% resistances they still have a massive amount of EHP and it's impractical to kill them without either a massive sub-cap blob or a slightly less massive capital fleet. For reference an Infrastructure hub has 5 million structure, 75 million shields, and 112.5 million Armor. That's just shy of 200 million total EHP


    Actually that link you posted is out of date. If you look at an Infrastructure Hub in-game you will find that it has less than half that many hit points (2.5 mil structure, 45 mil armour and 30 mil shield). Taking its resistance into account, it has 96.25 million EHP. If we were to adjust the structure stats so that all of that came from 99% resistances instead of raw HP, my proposed Entosis Link mechanics would reduce that EHP to less than 1 mil. In other words, down from approximately double a Titan's EHP to less than a Dreadnought's EHP.


    That amount of EHP is nothing for a 0.0 blob, but still far too much for a trollceptor to handle. This is the sweet spot! This is what we should be aiming for!

    Casual Incursion runner & Faction Warfare grunt, ex-Wormholer, ex-Nullbear.

    Caleb Seremshur
    Naked Oiled Bodybuilders
    Parasitic Legion.
    #192 - 2015-04-04 15:01:19 UTC
    Swiftstrike1 wrote:
    Cade Windstalker wrote:
    We don't need structure grinding to make a comeback. Even if you bring Structures down to 0% resistances they still have a massive amount of EHP and it's impractical to kill them without either a massive sub-cap blob or a slightly less massive capital fleet. For reference an Infrastructure hub has 5 million structure, 75 million shields, and 112.5 million Armor. That's just shy of 200 million total EHP


    Actually that link you posted is out of date. If you look at an Infrastructure Hub in-game you will find that it has less than half that many hit points (2.5 mil structure, 45 mil armour and 30 mil shield). Taking its resistance into account, it has 96.25 million EHP. If we were to adjust the structure stats so that all of that came from 99% resistances instead of raw HP, my proposed Entosis Link mechanics would reduce that EHP to less than 1 mil. In other words, down from approximately double a Titan's EHP to less than a Dreadnought's EHP.


    That amount of EHP is nothing for a 0.0 blob, but still far too much for a trollceptor to handle. This is the sweet spot! This is what we should be aiming for!


    I don't see how any given arbitrary EHP number is a sweetspot.

    A given group will always bring enough to handle the task.

    That's the simplest breakdown of the equation. We are at a point where one coalition has 40,000+ members. Don't ever pretend for a second that it wouldn't be possible for any set number of ships to turn up unless that number was outright unrealistic (CCP twoK era balancing).
    Alavaria Fera
    GoonWaffe
    #193 - 2015-04-04 15:20:50 UTC
    Oh my, we must stop a massive coalition

    quick replace EHP with EntosisHitPoints

    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 ?

    MeBiatch
    GRR GOONS
    #194 - 2015-04-04 16:05:38 UTC
    baltec1 wrote:
    Nevyn Auscent wrote:
    Damnit Goons! Making me like your post! :P
    Sounds like CCP have this one looking like a potential concept then, though we'll have to see how the Meta actually plays out and I still have huge concerns over the density issue that you simply can't have a substantial number of people living in the same system in Null (Unless you are miners).


    See structures for a fix to this. (hint: mission agents in sov space)


    I agree mission agents in sov space would go along way to help density issues with 0.0

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

    Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.

    Groperson
    GoonWaffe
    Goonswarm Federation
    #195 - 2015-04-04 17:02:23 UTC
    Excellent mechanics, completely addressing the concerns of a trollceptor meta.

    Now the people who want to attack space must risk something on field which can be killed, providing content for all involved. Instead of the defenders being griefed into chasing interceptors around their own space..

    HandelsPharmi
    Pharmi on CharBazaar
    #196 - 2015-04-04 19:23:14 UTC
    I would recommend Adv. infomorph Psychology level 5 for the T2 module.
    it should not be that easy to fit.
    or make a small and large version with T1 and T2 metas.
    I want to see some difficult requirements for the faster / more efficient module.

    and limit the module to higher skill requirements.
    a full account is not a limit as long it does not cost really much time and isk...
    Cade Windstalker
    #197 - 2015-04-04 20:09:06 UTC
    HandelsPharmi wrote:
    I would recommend Adv. infomorph Psychology level 5 for the T2 module.
    it should not be that easy to fit.
    or make a small and large version with T1 and T2 metas.
    I want to see some difficult requirements for the faster / more efficient module.

    and limit the module to higher skill requirements.
    a full account is not a limit as long it does not cost really much time and isk...


    I think you're misunderstanding, the T2 module is actually less efficient. They both capture in the same amount of time the shorter cycle time just lets you potentially escape or switch off more easily.

    Also part of the point of these changes is lowering the barrier to entry for Sov Warfare, which is currently measured on the scale "Your supercap fleet must be this tall to participate"
    HandelsPharmi
    Pharmi on CharBazaar
    #198 - 2015-04-04 20:14:09 UTC
    T2 makes me and my fleet more agile, thereforeit should have higher requirements. on the other side, it can be balanced later as well.
    Cade Windstalker
    #199 - 2015-04-04 20:28:58 UTC
    HandelsPharmi wrote:
    T2 makes me and my fleet more agile, thereforeit should have higher requirements. on the other side, it can be balanced later as well.


    It also has a higher mass penalty and higher fitting requirements, in addition to being far more expensive which limits the extent to which you can make that greater range work for you.

    What's your reasoning for "you must spend this much time training" before you can claim Sov? The only practical consequence I'm seeing from this is making new players less relevant in large fleets and increasing their barrier to entry to Null warfare.
    HandelsPharmi
    Pharmi on CharBazaar
    #200 - 2015-04-04 21:35:42 UTC
    You can claim sov with theTech1 module as well, and this is a requires a propper fitted ship. so the limiting skill is not Adv. Infomorph , the skills for a fitting a more difficult to achieve.