These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Knus'lar
Wormbro
The Society For Unethical Treatment Of Sleepers
#221 - 2015-03-09 15:59:38 UTC
Dave Stark 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.


fortunately you don't have to hit a trollceptor to stop it, just activate your own link.



Seems like everyone forgot this or didnt actually read. You dont need to kill any so-called troll ceptor, and even if it was an issue, just make long range kestrals or something and blap it off the field
PaDLa MD
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#222 - 2015-03-09 15:59:58 UTC
What makes sense to me is that the range at which the link is usable should be tied to the class of ship.

ie, frigate -20-30 km...
capital 100km

Buff the ranges for t2 variants.

This would solve your trollceptor problem, but not make firgates useless.
Azami Nevinyrall
172.0.0.1
#223 - 2015-03-09 16:00:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Azami Nevinyrall
A good "balance" I'd suggest is to permit "X" number of ship classes to use the Link at one time.

Let's use 5...

So if Alliance "A" has 2 Battlecruisers, 3 Trollceptors and 1 Battleship with links active. Then Alliance A, B, C, D, etc... Can use 3 Battle cruisers, 2 Trollceptors, 4 Battleships, and whatever else.....say 4 Destroyers.

...

EvilweaselFinance
GoonCorp
Goonswarm Federation
#224 - 2015-03-09 16:01:11 UTC
davet517 wrote:
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.


that requires placing actual assets at risk, so i don't have an issue with it: you can get away with skill and luck but it's not so stupidly easy the risk is essentially zero

the trollceptor is never at risk unless you pass out on your keyboard
Sbrodor
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#225 - 2015-03-09 16:04:29 UTC
i agree 100% that "victory" in eve is a personal way to see the fight:

1)isk war
2)killmails war
3)holding the field war.

between these 3 choices i agree the "holding the field" is the better way to determine a dominant faction in a single place.

ofc avoiding the forcing mechanics and trollfit is a good way.

i think the best way to determine who hold the field is giving simple a smaller range to the modules.
50km for t2 enthosis will in a clear way show who hold the field.

250km is some time a offgrid distance, grid manipulation mechanics and other edge-mechanics; i think is better close range to 50km is good .
SilentAsTheGrave
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#226 - 2015-03-09 16:04:33 UTC
EvilweaselFinance wrote:
SilentAsTheGrave wrote:
Ann Markson wrote:
While the Trolleceptor thing itself is a useless rage it adresses another issue. Currently the majority of Sov Null systems is worth ****.

CCP has the info and they are seeing boat loads of ISK being made in null. As in a LOT! Sorry this ruins your argument.

ccp are the drunk guy looking for his keys under the streetlight and not where he lost them

isk itself is mostly generated in null. wealth does not correlate to isk generated: a miner makes ore, not isk, a mission runner makes LP, not isk, a manufacturer makes items, not isk

those things then get CONVERTED to isk, but figuring out what that means income-wise is hard so CCP has just looked at raw isk generated and ignored all the other ways you make income.

They have the hard data, you don't. I get your trying to spin this to make it sound like everyone in null is going broke, yet evidence is shown this is not the case. Not just hard data for CCP's eyes, but as a normal player I see coalitions full of super capitals and other 'bling bling' type stuff. You guys even refer to losing 250 billion ISK to a thief as 'chump change and doesn't affect the goon bottom line.'

So tell me, which is it. You are rich or you are poor? Because you can't flip flop around depending on the subject. If you are the later then maybe you should start to question why your leadership is hording all the money while you starve.
afkalt
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#227 - 2015-03-09 16:04:55 UTC
EvilweaselFinance wrote:
davet517 wrote:
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.


that requires placing actual assets at risk, so i don't have an issue with it: you can get away with skill and luck but it's not so stupidly easy the risk is essentially zero

the trollceptor is never at risk unless you pass out on your keyboard


Or a cerberus is on field. Or a linked rapier/huginn/lachesis/garmur. Or a sniper fit turret ship. Or a smartbombing camp is in the way. Or it comes in close to kill the ship with damps on it or that is running its own link.

It's never at risk if you're remotely not serious about contesting the structure.
John McCreedy
Eve Defence Force
The Bastion
#228 - 2015-03-09 16:05:51 UTC
Rroff wrote:
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?


The blog stated that the Entosis module should have 'low fitting requirements' and that the T2 variant can operate at 250km. This has lead most of us to come to the conclusion that the obvious strategy is to use a single interceptor built explicitly for speed and targeting range. How do you stop a single Interceptor, that is Interdiction nullified so can warp away from any gate camp, that is faster than almost any other ship, that would logically be piloted by only the best solo PvPers, from reinforcing an entire Sov system? We basically go from 3000 man brawls in local, to a single ship in order to contest sov.

13 years and counting. Eve Defence Force is recruiting.

Promiscuous Female
GBS Logistics and Fives Support
Goonswarm Federation
#229 - 2015-03-09 16:07:37 UTC  |  Edited by: ISD Ezwal
afkalt wrote:

Or a cerberus is on field. Or a linked rapier/huginn/lachesis/garmur. Or a sniper fit turret ship. Or a smartbombing camp is in the way. Or it comes in close to kill the ship with damps on it or that is running its own link.

It's never at risk if you're remotely not serious about contesting the structure.

the interceptor just disengages if any of those things somehow managed to waddle onto field in defiance of an interceptor's superior warp speed

what is it about the concept "the interceptor can travel at will and disengage at will" are you *Snip* Please refrain from personal attacks. ISD Ezwal. failing to grasp
Eli Apol
Definitely a nullsec alt
#230 - 2015-03-09 16:08:37 UTC  |  Edited by: ISD Ezwal
Sbrodor wrote:
250km is some time a offgrid distance, grid manipulation mechanics and other edge-mechanics; i think is better close range to 50km is good .
Another good counter to the trollceptors: Grid fu to make them leave grid whilst orbitting and lose their locks

Nice one :)

Promiscuous Female wrote:

the interceptor just disengages if any of those things somehow managed to waddle onto field in defiance of an interceptor's superior warp speed

what is it about the concept "the interceptor can travel at will and disengage at will" are you *Snip* Please refrain from personal attacks. ISD Ezwal. failing to grasp

The fact they can't warp off until the module deactivates some 2-5 minutes later? And that this thread has already raised multiple minor tweaks like sig radius / speed nerfs that would make trollceptors even more vulnerable WITHOUT needing to completely scrap nullified ships from using the module (and make defending empty space easier as certain people have a vested interest in doing)

but what would I know, I'm just a salvager

EvilweaselFinance
GoonCorp
Goonswarm Federation
#231 - 2015-03-09 16:08:43 UTC  |  Edited by: ISD Ezwal
SilentAsTheGrave wrote:

They have the hard data, you don't. I get your trying to spin this to make it sound like everyone in null is going broke, yet evidence is shown this is not the case. Not just hard data for CCP's eyes, but as a normal player I see coalitions full of super capitals and other 'bling bling' type stuff. You guys even refer to losing 250 billion ISK to a thief as 'chump change and doesn't affect the goon bottom line.'

So tell me, which is it. You are rich or you are poor? Because you can't flip flop around depending on the subject. If you are the later then maybe you should start to question why your leadership is hording all the money while you starve.


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

to assist you in trying to figure out what my point is, the discussion is essentially the relative income in nullsec compared to the relative income in other regions of space, and what statistics one would look at to judge
Promiscuous Female
GBS Logistics and Fives Support
Goonswarm Federation
#232 - 2015-03-09 16:09:07 UTC
Eli Apol wrote:
Sbrodor wrote:
250km is some time a offgrid distance, grid manipulation mechanics and other edge-mechanics; i think is better close range to 50km is good .
Another good counter to the trollceptors: Grid fu to make them leave grid whilst orbitting and lose their locks

Nice one :)

this is not how grid fu works
SilentAsTheGrave
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#233 - 2015-03-09 16:10:15 UTC
Murkar Omaristos wrote:
Remove trollceptors as a possibility plz, kthx. And limit the number of entosis modules that can be activated against a target corp at one time so small gangs cant just all spread out to different systems and wreak total havoc.

So this alliance that owns the sov can't spare enough guys to match that small gang in their prime time to defend the systems being contested?

I don't get it. There seems to be a lot of cherry picking going around when creating these doomsday situations.
Veskrashen
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#234 - 2015-03-09 16:10:19 UTC  |  Edited by: ISD Ezwal
Promiscuous Female wrote:
what is it about the concept "the interceptor can travel at will and disengage at will" are you *Snip* Please refrain from personal attacks. ISD Ezwal. failing to grasp

The fact that it can't "disengage at will" while an Entosis Link is active? Which gives a defender up to 2 minutes to close and kill it? Especially when the fight starts at less than 80km due to combat probes?

We Gallente have a saying: "CCP created the Gallente Militia to train the Fighters..."

Promiscuous Female
GBS Logistics and Fives Support
Goonswarm Federation
#235 - 2015-03-09 16:11:23 UTC  |  Edited by: ISD Ezwal
Veskrashen wrote:
Promiscuous Female wrote:
what is it about the concept "the interceptor can travel at will and disengage at will" are you *Snip* Please refrain from personal attacks. ISD Ezwal. failing to grasp

The fact that it can't "disengage at will" while an Entosis Link is active? Which gives a defender up to 2 minutes to close and kill it? Especially when the fight starts at less than 80km due to combat probes?

how do you close on an interceptor before it burns off grid exactly

hint: they go fast, can't be bubbled, and scrams have a very short range on anything that can keep up with them
EvilweaselFinance
GoonCorp
Goonswarm Federation
#236 - 2015-03-09 16:11:29 UTC
Veskrashen wrote:

The fact that it can't "disengage at will" while an Entosis Link is active? Which gives a defender up to 2 minutes to close and kill it? Especially when the fight starts at less than 80km due to combat probes?

yes it can, very easily, because it is fast enough that it trivally crosses a grid wall

seriously do any of you people even know the barest minimum about how this game works
Strata Maslav
Captain's Quarters
Hell Dawn
#237 - 2015-03-09 16:11:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Strata Maslav
I think the balance should be made between range and mobility with the Entosis Link. It is important to have a long range option available to ensure that a ranged setup can contest the site otherwise we will get an over bias towards brawling setups.

I feel there should be little to no penalty for the T1 25km range variant. if you are sat 25 km off the beacon you are committed to fight.

The difficulty is the balance of the T2 module which allows for control of the point at the longest possible distance, enabling more than just brawling ships to contest a node.

The downside to the long range that the T2 module offers is that with a fast/agile enough ship, a pilot could contest a site with minimal risk to himself, and would be very difficult if not impossible to either kill or push them off the grid for any meaningful length of time.

With the current T2 module stats it needs some sort of a trade off. Trading tank or signature would allow the ship to be sniped too easily and would push the meta into longer ranged setups so I feel we are only left with mobility or fitting.

Regarding mobility I feel ship mass would be the best characteristic to change as it would allow a ship to still use it speed but ensure that it cannot kite in circles sitting 250km off the beacon.

To use fitting as am of the opinion that the T2 variant would be best reserved for cruisers and above. You can fit a fast cruiser but it would be much more difficult to avoid tackle, though I am still concerned that certain cruisers would still pose a significant issue. A safe option would be to only allow a battlecruisers, which are tanky enough not get alpha off the field and with correct fitting can kite armor cruisers, but not so fast that it cannot be brought down in a timely fashion with no support sat on field.
SilentAsTheGrave
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#238 - 2015-03-09 16:11:42 UTC
Murkar Omaristos wrote:
Also, you got nearly 200 pages of responses in 48 hours after posting this idea. Do you rly think "thanks but we're leaving it like this" is a satisfactory response to that?

Fix the concerns that people have, don't just put a PR-bandaid on it.

This is a breakout thread in regards to the Entosis Link only.
SilentAsTheGrave
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#239 - 2015-03-09 16:13:07 UTC
xttz wrote:
Will an active Entosis Link prevent cloaking?

Last time I checked you can't target anything while cloaked. Blink
afkalt
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#240 - 2015-03-09 16:14:33 UTC  |  Edited by: ISD Ezwal
Promiscuous Female wrote:
Veskrashen wrote:
Promiscuous Female wrote:
what is it about the concept "the interceptor can travel at will and disengage at will" are you *Snip* Please refrain from personal attacks. ISD Ezwal.failing to grasp

The fact that it can't "disengage at will" while an Entosis Link is active? Which gives a defender up to 2 minutes to close and kill it? Especially when the fight starts at less than 80km due to combat probes?

how do you close on an interceptor before it burns off grid exactly

hint: they go fast, can't be bubbled, and scrams have a very short range on anything that can keep up with them


Unless they're linked, drugged and on high grade slaves, a Cerberus will ruin their day. So will a cloaky recon.

But let's not let realities get in the way of the propaganda machine.