These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Yroc Jannseen
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#201 - 2015-03-09 15:40:30 UTC
Christopher Schmidt wrote:
not sure if this was brought up yet.

But to like counter these trollinterceptors, how about you allow alliances to anchor pos guns/ewar on their sov structures, doesnt have to be dickstarish, just enough CPU for 5 small guns and a web or something.
Problem solved, no more troll interceptors.


You're talking about either de-coupling POS's from moons or a whole new system of deployable guns. Not a simple solution at all.
John McCreedy
Eve Defence Force
The Bastion
#202 - 2015-03-09 15:42:36 UTC
Altrue wrote:
Andy Koraka wrote:
Add the same effects as an active HIC bubble to ships running active Entosis links:

-90% velocity
+sig bloom

it is actually that easy to fix the trollceptor and make the attacker actually expose their ship to getting tackled/shot by a defender.


-90% velocity and sig bloom is extremely bad when it comes to keeping every doctrine that is viable without enthosises a viable choice with them.

You need to consider a penalty that doesn't harm most doctrines in the game. Capping the maximum velocity is one way to achieve this. If you cap it to say 3 or 4km/s, other ceptors can easily catch your trollceptor, while leaving virtually every other doctrine untouched by the change.


It doesn't matter. The issue isn't with the ship on the grid, it's with a single person in local having to be considered a threat to your Sov during the vulnerability window so you have to have people camp the structures during it. One person being able to reinforce an entire system isn't balance, it's going from one extreme to the other. There has to be a middle ground between the two.

13 years and counting. Eve Defence Force is recruiting.

Arrendis
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#203 - 2015-03-09 15:43:14 UTC
davet517 wrote:
LT Alter wrote:
Amyclas Amatin wrote:

Put it this way. If sending 500 suicide alts to Entosis something is a viable strategy, we will do it.


While I understand your point of 'anything to win', even with current mechanics you'll never be able to send suicide fleets with the entotis link to win. All the enemy has to do is contest with 1 entosis link and suddenly your 500 are not doing anything.
.


He didn't say he'd send them all at once. What he's talking about is spamming cheap ships with links on them for as long as it takes. Which brings up a good point. Entosis links don't have to be expensive, but could they be uncommon? Say made from single run BPCs found by exploring? Would deter the "spamming" behavior described above that would be possible if you could crank out unlimited stockpiles of them.


If they're uncommon, they'll be expensive. People will want to buy the BPCs, rather than go and get the BPCs on their own. Others will get the BPC with no intention of making Entosis Links - or of using Links, and either the BPC or the Links will go on sale for whatever price the market will bare.

And the price will go up, the more uncommon these things are. In a market economy like EVE, you cannot decouple availability and price. Supply and demand, as it were.
Jason Dunham
Andvaranaut Conglomerate
#204 - 2015-03-09 15:43:25 UTC
Perhaps some clarification of how the module functions would answer the questions in this thread.

1. Can the cycle of the entosis be stopped in the middle?

If not then you can't just bugger off if someone shows up, you have to stay on grid until the cycle completes.

2. If you are jammed, or damped where you lose lock on the structure, does the entosis module deactivate, allowing you to warp off, or are you kept there until the cycle finishes with no effect?

If not, then it would be more risky to activate the module, because like Bastion, Siege, or Triage you are committing to being on that grid until your cycle is done.

I'd like more information on how the module works, but overall I think the change looks good. I see people worrying about how easy it would be to attack systems, but I think that misses the intent of the change. This change is meant to emphasize and reward occupancy. You should have no empty systems that an interceptor can go capture while you're doing something else. If you are active in your space you will have 40 minutes to go respond to the attack in your prime time. So if a group decides to reinforce a bunch of your systems at once with only a few ships or single interceptor at each, you will have the opportunity to form up a roam and respond to each of those attacks. If you are in a big enough group to occupy a lot of space, you should be able to form up multiple fleets to kill or drive the attackers away.

These changes should shrink the blocks of territory that are controlled, making room for more groups in nullsec. It also (rightly) reduces the risk and cost of attacking sov. Fast frigates would be easily countered by sensor damps or jams, so you could either drive the attacker away or interfere with their progress while your fleet forms. You also have to investigate why you would attack sov after the changes. Sure, some people will do it to create content or annoy others, but I believe most will be more concerned about defending their space than trying to acquire more space that they will have to defend.

The risk is low for a small attacking force, but that also means the cost to counter that attack is also low. The initial attack will occur at structures that the defenders put in place, meaning that they have plenty of time to put bookmarks all over them. I only see issues for groups that have lots of empty space, and for them the answer is to shrink their controlled space until they can occupy it.
SilentAsTheGrave
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#205 - 2015-03-09 15:43:58 UTC
DeadDuck wrote:
Harkin Issier wrote:
EvilweaselFinance wrote:
Trollceptors fundamentally don't fit the "effective control of the grid" argument. The things that can hit an orbiting snaked-out interceptor are few and far between and require very specific fits to counter, allowing a trollceptor to easily keep a link alive without effective control of the grid. This also forces specific metas, in opposition to the view that they should not affect the meta - you have to be able to blap interceptors in your fleet composition.

They also simply allow you to evade committing anything to a fight, and if you're attacking sov at the very least you should be risking a single ship.


Kiting trollceptors need LOTS of room to burn around in, putting them in the 100+km range. All you need to do to counter them is fit sensor damps. Congrats, your interceptor is now useless. "Step into my fleet's optimal range", said the Lachesis to the Crow.


Hey what about if the troll ceptor comes with 3 or 4 normal ceptors along? What you think will happen to the maulus or whatever ? It's the question of agility also... a ceptor can be in 1 system and 5 minutes after can be at 10 jumps out doing the same thing again... to the same alliance...

To be fair, do you really think that alliance who can only muster ONE guy to defend the territory in their prime time should have that sov?
Lorac Gemini
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#206 - 2015-03-09 15:44:12 UTC
The simplest solution I think is just lowering the range of Entosis links. Trollceptors with a 100km radius bubble sphere of influence definitely makes them hard to handle.

If you downgrade the ranges from 25km and 250km to 15km and 25km, their sphere of influence is much smaller, making it easier to both scram and web them. It also puts them within range of weapons that can drive them off the field, even if they won't outright blap them.
Arkon Olacar
black.listed
#207 - 2015-03-09 15:44:41 UTC  |  Edited by: ISD Ezwal
davet517 wrote:
Arkon Olacar wrote:
rsantos wrote:
I still see this has the defending part owing too much sov.


Then how much sov is 'enough' sov for a 18k coalition? As clearly a single region is too much, according to our expert sov holder Mordus Angels.


Clearly, as things stand today they need that much space, or more. System resources really need to scale with the number of players occupying it, to a degree, and that should go hand in hand with how much space that many players could reasonably be expected to defend without being run ragged.

Of their 18K, how many are logged in at any given time? 10%? 20%? Lets say it's 2000. If a system's resources could scale to 100 players more or less actively playing, Brave could fit in 20 systems, more or less, and easily defend that many without chasing their tails. They could certainly threaten and even take adjacent systems, but they'd have to be mindful of the downside of getting too spread out.

That opens up space for new entrants. If you want a deterrent to systems getting too densely packed, start widening the "prime time" window once they exceed a certain threshold, forcing the sov holder to either spread out, or defend a bigger window.

*Snip* Please refrain from personal attacks. ISD Ezwal.

Napkin maths gives me a current nullsec population of 120k, plus another 15k non-sov holding NPC null dwellers, who would presumably be in for a piece of sov with these changes. If you're saying that a suitable amount of space for Brave is 20 systems, and we scale that across the current total population (including renters), then you're saying that everyone currently living in sov or npc nullsec should fit into 6% of the current systems out there, and if they try to hold more, they are overextended and shouldn't be able to defend that much space.

6%.

How about no.
xttz
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#208 - 2015-03-09 15:44:46 UTC
Will an active Entosis Link prevent cloaking?
Christopher Schmidt
#209 - 2015-03-09 15:44:59 UTC
Yroc Jannseen wrote:
Christopher Schmidt wrote:
not sure if this was brought up yet.

But to like counter these trollinterceptors, how about you allow alliances to anchor pos guns/ewar on their sov structures, doesnt have to be dickstarish, just enough CPU for 5 small guns and a web or something.
Problem solved, no more troll interceptors.


You're talking about either de-coupling POS's from moons or a whole new system of deployable guns. Not a simple solution at all.


actually a set of deployable guns that are only allowed to be launched on a grid with a sov structure would be very simple , CCP likes deployable structures, might start making some usefull ones then.

http://germans-cartel.de/

Arkon Olacar
black.listed
#210 - 2015-03-09 15:47:46 UTC
Altrue wrote:
Andy Koraka wrote:
Add the same effects as an active HIC bubble to ships running active Entosis links:

-90% velocity
+sig bloom

it is actually that easy to fix the trollceptor and make the attacker actually expose their ship to getting tackled/shot by a defender.


-90% velocity and sig bloom is extremely bad when it comes to keeping every doctrine that is viable without enthosises a viable choice with them.

You need to consider a penalty that doesn't harm most doctrines in the game. Capping the maximum velocity is one way to achieve this. If you cap it to say 3 or 4km/s, other ceptors can easily catch your trollceptor, while leaving virtually every other doctrine untouched by the change.

Arbitary hard caps are a shockingly awful way to design game mechanics, absolutely not. A percentage based reduction in speed would be viable however. Maybe not 90%.
Vared Egody
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#211 - 2015-03-09 15:48:58 UTC
I thought of adding to the discussion:

For fitting requirments I'd like to suggest around 150CPU, haven't thought of a reasonable PG yet.

Why 150? It should deter a droneboat as it would eat up a lot of its CPU that would be needed for Drone damage mods.

Also Frigs would need to gimp their fit to put on one, or no guns etc.

Also to ease the worries of trollceptors, activating an Entosis link could add 200-300% sig radius to offset the inherent bonuses of Interceptors V.

Murkar Omaristos
The Alabaster Albatross
Unreasonable Bastards
#212 - 2015-03-09 15:50:37 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Quote:
As much as possible, the Entosis Link capture progress should reflect which group has effective military control of the grid.


This will not happen if frigates are allowed to use it.

Quote:
The optimal strategy for fighting over a location with the Entosis Link should be to gain effective control of the grid.


Then make it disable prop mods as well, so people can't ***** out and kite their way through a sov capture.

If their intent to attack the sov in a given system is genuine and not just trolling, then they'll have no problem fighting for control of the grid, instead of kiting until the other guy dies of boredom.

One or both of those things should be implemented, if you are actually serious about making it matter who has control of the grid. Otherwise it will be a trolling contest.


This......is actually a very good idea.
SilentAsTheGrave
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#213 - 2015-03-09 15:50:58 UTC
Amyclas Amatin wrote:
SilentAsTheGrave wrote:
Amyclas Amatin wrote:
Will Entosis links do anything to ship velocity?

If they don't, even if you don't allow frigates to fit them, we will troll in orthruses or 10mn AB tactical destroyers.

It's like you keep ignoring the fact I can just skip over and stop you with my own Entosis link. Why do you keep doing this??


Hah. Made you babysit the structure by putting your own ship in the open. Objective complete.

Rinse and repeat until you run out of people willing to do that for 4 hours a day.

Hah. Made you risk a ship out in the open. Objective complete.

Rinse and repeat until you run out of people willing to do that for 4 hours a day.

Don't forget you guys have half the map you will need to protect as well. You guys keep conveniently forgetting about that.
Arla Sarain
#214 - 2015-03-09 15:53:13 UTC
Lorac Gemini wrote:
Trollceptors with a 100km radius bubble sphere of influence definitely makes them hard to handle.


Because they can't be EWARd?

I don't get it. If the argument for EWARIng them doesn't work because the actual grid dominance reduces to whomever gets bored first, assuming you had a reliable way of killing ceptors, wouldn't the boredom just extend to bringing back more ships?

At the end of the day, whoever is persistent wins regardless of the ship.

Ceptors will get jammed, damped if they can't be killed. End of. If they could be killed, it'd just reduce to whomever got tired of bringing the trollceptor.

SilentAsTheGrave
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#215 - 2015-03-09 15:53:45 UTC
Daalamira wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Hello folks. ...

Thanks
-Fozzie



You really should go into politics, you just posted a wall of text without saying a damn thing relevant to the concerns of the community.

Actually, he did. Even outlined it for ease of reading. Just because you don't agree with it doesn't mean it was not relevant.
Wemyss
Urlen Outfitters
#216 - 2015-03-09 15:54:59 UTC
How about only defenders can use the T2?
davet517
Raata Invicti
#217 - 2015-03-09 15:55:30 UTC
EvilweaselFinance wrote:
[
this also is the same dumb response that ignores the interceptor can't be caught, merely its trolling made successful by forcing you to sit on a gate doing nothing but staring impotently at it, while it can then vary it up by moving on to the next system


Ok, but how many different "troll" doctrines are you demand be nerfed? You know that someone can do the same thing to you with a "frigs and recons" black ops gang, right? Frigs for the links covered by falcons to shut down a few defenders. Things get hot, just cloak up and bounce.
SilentAsTheGrave
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#218 - 2015-03-09 15:56:54 UTC
Groperson wrote:
Kinis Deren wrote:
The Mittani wrote:
Though it may come as a surprise to some, I'm a big fan of the new system, with some tweaks around the edges - tweak the links a little and I'm happy with them.

Here are some options I'd be in favor of w/r/t Entosis Links .

AttentionNone of these ideas are mineAttention - they come from Xttz, Progodlegend, or are otherwise ubiquitous across the community.


  • Interdiction Nullifiers could interfere with the activation of an Entosis Link - T3s would need to refit a different subsystem once at a target via a moble depot, and the mods would not work at all with interceptors.
  • Once activated, the Entosis Link could disable any fitted propulsion mod, like siege/triage currently.
  • Progodlegend's idea - we could limit the link module to cruiser class hulls and above via cpu/pg.


I'd be happy with any/all of the above three tweaks.

Cheers!


Nope.

We'd end up with a "bubble border" around every coalition to stop anyone from threatening the current sov null paradigm.

Allowing inties and T3's to fit and use the Entosis module prevents bubble spam being an effective strategy in nullifying the proposed sov mechanics.

Play the game and defend your systems then you won't have any issues coping with lone interceptors.



The thing is, if you allow interceptors to attack sov. What do you risk as the attacker?
Even in the most well defended region of space: deklein, you can just zoom interceptor gangs through with no risk because they are uncatchable.

That' bubble spam' that you encounter is called 'the residents defending their space'

You are advocating that even if residents defend their space, they will never be able to catch the people who are attacking it. That is broken, you risk nothing for attack and yet force the defenders to form a response and if it is insufficiently quick, do 10x the amount of work than the attackers.

If you want to play at the sov game then you should have to risk something, if you allow entosis links on interceptors, the attacker risks nothing. Whilst the defender has everything at risk.

Maybe you guys should leave some of the PvPers behind to protect the nullbears instead of deploying them to the other side of the map as ~honorable 3rd party~.
SilentAsTheGrave
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#219 - 2015-03-09 15:58:58 UTC
I just want to point out, this new sov system is infinity better than anything we have had before and most certainly, better than what we have now. Sure there is some things to tweak here and there, but most certainly better. Big smile
Rroff
Antagonistic Tendencies
#220 - 2015-03-09 15:59:35 UTC
Don't really have my head in these new mechanics - anyone care to elaborate how this doesn't just change the focus from who can put the most heavily armed boots on the ground to who can roll the most newbie alts and zerg/lemming attack/defend?