These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Ab'del Abu
Atlantis Ascendant
#261 - 2015-03-09 16:24:34 UTC
You say you don't want to artificially skew the meta by allowing the entosis link on command ships and battleships only, but I still wouldn't want to see this module on frigate and destroyer class ships. At least not without significant drawback. I would approach this by using rather high fitting requirements, say around 150 for each cpu and powergrid.

This would ensure that entosis link fitted frigates and dessis would have seriously gimped fits and massive t1 cruiser fleets wouldn't be able to fit those things on mass without a certain penalty.

You should also consider "entosis link travel time". It shouldn't be a massive logistical challenge to get the link to the intended destination. But it should def. take longer than a ceptor would need.
EvilweaselFinance
GoonCorp
Goonswarm Federation
#262 - 2015-03-09 16:25:23 UTC
Dracvlad wrote:
It comes down to you CCP Fozzie thinking whether having people able to RF stuff with interceptors to grief balances off against the inability to get into Deklin space in any meaningful way.

if deklein, the most populated and well-used 0.0 region in the entire game, isn't easily defensible what on earth do you think is going to happen to every single other region no matter what the defenders do
Eli Apol
Definitely a nullsec alt
#263 - 2015-03-09 16:25:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Eli Apol
Promiscuous Female wrote:
Eli Apol wrote:
Promiscuous Female wrote:
this is not how grid fu works

You can shrink a grid by extending the grids that surround it... I learned this from a goons .pdf Roll

It's quite a common technique in Niarja and Uedema to make the grids surrounding the gates smaller so that they can gank offgrid without having to bump the freighters so far.

you can only do this if there is no one else on grid holding it open

grid fu will never cause a stationary ship to suddenly slip out of a grid through no fault of its own

So now the trollceptors are stationary and a defensive group has no time in the preceeding days/weeks/months to grid-fu the environs around their susceptible structures before this cloud of stationary interceptors arrives and sits with zero transversal? Keep digging that hole.

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

Groperson
Perkone
Caldari State
#264 - 2015-03-09 16:27:08 UTC
SilentAsTheGrave wrote:
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~.



We do, we have pvp'ers at home, running bubbled gatecamps with instalockers and even they are unable to catch the interceptor gangs that come through. How would you suggest we counter the interceptor gangs?
John McCreedy
Eve Defence Force
The Bastion
#265 - 2015-03-09 16:27:09 UTC  |  Edited by: ISD Ezwal
Dracvlad wrote:
*Snip* Please refrain from discussing forum moderation. ISD Ezwal.

The question about interceptors is a key one in terms of certain regions that are very difficult to get to, the first concept to work back to is the question of whether this requires regional defence or system defence. If you want it to be system defence the interceptors must be an option.

The issue of course comes in with the ability to get there, this is not Grrr Goons, but Goon Deklin is the example that I need to highlight, without the use of interceptors you give the Goons such a strategic advantage we might as well just give up, all they have to do is gate camp three gates, which will be behind other gate camps. Then you will give them free reign to run around doing what they want with very little fear about their home area.

It comes down to you CCP Fozzie thinking whether having people able to RF stuff with interceptors to grief balances off against the inability to get into Deklin space in any meaningful way.

I of course would prefer to have the ability to use interceptors as part of what I would call the softening up period, trying to throw the defender off balance by splitting their defence, but I would be happy to do that in a fair amount of 0.0 space without the ability of interceptors to get through bubbles and gate camps, but not killing me in terms of cost if lost, the only other ships that could do that are T3's but they cost.

So if you remove the ability to use interceptors you reduce the need for system defence!


No, it simply requires the attacker to put a little more planning in to their attack than simply jump in an especially fitted interceptor and burn all the way from Feythabolis to Deklien in order to knock VFK in to reinforce mode? What was that about nerfing power projection, CCP?

13 years and counting. Eve Defence Force is recruiting.

afkalt
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#266 - 2015-03-09 16:28:10 UTC
DeadDuck wrote:
The danger is not in the single guy that comes along in a fast ship to mess with your sov.

The abuse will be in a group of 5-10 fast ships protecting the "troll ceptor(s)" that can pretty much mess up the sov of a solid alliance without much effort or risk. That's it...

Bring 2 troll ceptors, 1 of grid booster, 3-5 ortrus/cynabals/Ishtars + 1 or 2 keres + 1 Logistic and you have a winner, to turn sov a nightmare to keep to 99,99% of the alliances in game.

This WILL happen unless there is a penalty to ship velocity of some kind even if It would make so much more sense to restrict the enthosis link to cap ships.


So roaming gangs get a fight? The HORROR! The abject HORROR!

If you live in your space and you cant handle this crap in your own, designated prime time....you deserve to lose it.


Good lord, you'd think these things are going to come crawling out from under your beds whilst you sleep.
Super Noodle
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#267 - 2015-03-09 16:28:40 UTC
Fozzie, can you please scrap this entire plan you've come up with to rework sov and start over from scratch. It's garbage.
Promiscuous Female
GBS Logistics and Fives Support
Goonswarm Federation
#268 - 2015-03-09 16:29:01 UTC
afkalt wrote:

100km is plenty. 75km is plenty as it will either be orbiting or stationary, you'll catch it.

Also, territory defended. Op success.


A NOOB SHIP with a link can stop this nonsense, never mind something with weapons.


These are never in a million years going to be the terrors you're making out if you live in your space. I recall of a lot of chat about siphons and this exact thing being bandied about. "It's too easy", "we'll siphon every moon in the cosmos just because".

If you think the eve collective can't come up with creative ways to stop these (hint: 80m modules assumed to be on EVERY 'ceptor in a given window is a big incentive to pop these) I don't know what to tell you (but I'm buying up smartbombs before it's too late)

why do you keep repeating the part about stopping the capture when we keep telling you that isn't where our concerns lie

hell I will repeat it

the issue is the ability for the interceptor to run away once a force comes to stop it, the fact that it cannot be killed outside of serious pilot error

also you seem to have a funny concept of how distances work

hint: 110km > 100km
EvilweaselFinance
GoonCorp
Goonswarm Federation
#269 - 2015-03-09 16:29:08 UTC
Groperson wrote:
[We do, we have pvp'ers at home, running bubbled gatecamps with instalockers and even they are unable to catch the interceptor gangs that come through. How would you suggest we counter the interceptor gangs?

obviously by using neuting bumping nafalgars or whatever the latest theoretical approach is that anyone who has spent 5m in null knows won't work and why

i think smartbombs are the lastest hotness in theorycrafting because npc alts can't activate smartbombs where they live so they don't know you can't smartbomb if you'd hit a gate
Killian Cormac
Cormac Distribution
#270 - 2015-03-09 16:29:09 UTC
John McCreedy wrote:
you have a choice. Ignore me and hope I'm just there as an annoyance. Or risk sov in your Capital system.


False dichotomies work on five-year-olds, they should work fine here too.
Promiscuous Female
GBS Logistics and Fives Support
Goonswarm Federation
#271 - 2015-03-09 16:31:18 UTC
Eli Apol wrote:
Promiscuous Female wrote:
Eli Apol wrote:
Promiscuous Female wrote:
this is not how grid fu works

You can shrink a grid by extending the grids that surround it... I learned this from a goons .pdf Roll

It's quite a common technique in Niarja and Uedema to make the grids surrounding the gates smaller so that they can gank offgrid without having to bump the freighters so far.

you can only do this if there is no one else on grid holding it open

grid fu will never cause a stationary ship to suddenly slip out of a grid through no fault of its own

So now the trollceptors are stationary and a defensive group has no time in the preceeding days/weeks/months to grid-fu the environs around their susceptible structures before this cloud of stationary interceptors arrives and sits with zero transversal? Keep digging that hole.

i too log on every day to re-grid-fu my tcu, ihub, and station in every system I possess to acquire an infinitesimal advantage

nevermind that is an exploit and would eventually get reported

and yes the interceptor stays still while it is capturing, as long as no one else is on grid

this way it can be in the best position to run away, orbiting means you eventually start orbiting towards a celestial and get owned
GeeShizzle MacCloud
#272 - 2015-03-09 16:31:30 UTC
surely to have the least impact on fleet doctrine fits and the dynamic of fleet/gang warfare having the entosis link as a module means it will take the place of a module that keeps a fitting or doctrine at its optimum unless it just so happens that module is not critical but a tactical option.

eg: drone boats would have more room for a high slot module then gun or missile based doctrines, mid slot modules would benefit armor doctrines more, low slot modules will favour shield doctrines.

so knowing this surely the entosis link should be an implant that allows you a right click option on a sov structure as it would have the least effect on fleet doctrines. Plus its meant to be a mind to machine interface after all.
Arkon Olacar
black.listed
#273 - 2015-03-09 16:31:43 UTC
John McCreedy wrote:
I don't know about you but the average player plays around 3-4 hours a day during the week. Your alliance is going to set the vulnerability window to the time you play Eve. I'm going to sit there in my cloaky interceptor. Am I there to annoy you? Or am I there to reinforce your sov? You can't probe me out because I'm cloaked. You can't stop me because I'm interdiction nullified. Do you want to take the chance I can reinforce G-E? More importantly, does Brave?

So you have a choice. Ignore me and hope I'm just there as an annoyance. Or risk sov in your Capital system. If you want to protect it, you've no choice but to set up a camps on the Station, the TCU and the iHub because gate camps are useless. So your entire play time is reduced to a camp to try catch a cloaky camper that may or may not attack your sov. No ratting for you. No mining for you. No roaming for you. All the other time zones in your alliance can rat or mine or roam. But not you. Not yours. You are on guard duty. Why? Because CCP decided it was a good idea to allow Interceptors to reinforce systems. Sound like fun to you?


While all of this is true, it does miss out the key part.

It's not just you doing this.

You're sitting there in GE-, while 50 of your buddies are spread out one per system across Catch. The moment a system is unprotected, that guy decloaks and starts using his link. The moment something turns up to counter that ceptor, he burns off, warps away and cloaks up. Sure, that saves that system, for now. But then that group of defenders has to go a few systems over, to take care of another one of your buddies. He decloaks and starts RFing the ihub again.

This process will dominate that region for the entire four hour window, with no rest or respite. And no matter how hard they try, the defenders will not be able to be everywhere at once, and will be faced at least half a dozen timers the next day as payment for their four hours of mindnumbingly dull work, with no kills or assets lost by the aggressor.

The next day, the defender now has these timers to deal with, and he has to capture 50-100 command nodes to keep hold of his space. Meanwhile, those 50 ceptors are still sat there, still poking away every time you turn your back. End result is the defender wastes hours of peoples time, keep hold of most (but not all) of the systems under attack, and is now faced with another dozen timers for the next day.

Welcome to Fozziesov.
afkalt
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#274 - 2015-03-09 16:32:08 UTC  |  Edited by: afkalt
Promiscuous Female wrote:
afkalt wrote:

100km is plenty. 75km is plenty as it will either be orbiting or stationary, you'll catch it.

Also, territory defended. Op success.


A NOOB SHIP with a link can stop this nonsense, never mind something with weapons.


These are never in a million years going to be the terrors you're making out if you live in your space. I recall of a lot of chat about siphons and this exact thing being bandied about. "It's too easy", "we'll siphon every moon in the cosmos just because".

If you think the eve collective can't come up with creative ways to stop these (hint: 80m modules assumed to be on EVERY 'ceptor in a given window is a big incentive to pop these) I don't know what to tell you (but I'm buying up smartbombs before it's too late)

why do you keep repeating the part about stopping the capture when we keep telling you that isn't where our concerns lie

hell I will repeat it

the issue is the ability for the interceptor to run away once a force comes to stop it, the fact that it cannot be killed outside of serious pilot error

also you seem to have a funny concept of how distances work

hint: 110km > 100km



Recons are cloaky.


Smartbomb camps will pop up. I GUARANTEE it.
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
#275 - 2015-03-09 16:32:52 UTC  |  Edited by: ISD Ezwal
Promiscuous Female wrote:
Dracvlad wrote:
*Snip* Please refrain from discussing forum moderation. ISD Ezwal.

The question about interceptors is a key one in terms of certain regions that are very difficult to get to, the first concept to work back to is the question of whether this requires regional defence or system defence. If you want it to system defence the interceptors must be an option.

The issue of course comes in with the ability to get there, this is not Grrr Goons, but Goon Deklin is the example that I need to highlight, without the use of interceptors you give the Goons such a strategic advantage we might as well just give up, all they have to do is gate camp three gates, which will be behind other gate camps. Then you will give them free reign to run around doing what they want with very little fear about their home area.

It comes down to you CCP Fozzie thinking whether having people able to RF stuff with interceptors to grief balances off against the inability to get into Deklin space in any meaningful way.

I of course would prefer to have the ability to use interceptors as part of what I would call the softening up period, trying to throw the defender off balance by splitting their defence, but I would be happy to do that in a fair amount of 0.0 space without the ability of interceptors to get through bubbles and gate camps, but not killing me in terms of cost if lost, the only other ships that could do that are T3's but they cost.

So if you remove the ability to use interceptors you reduce the need for system defence!

i guess they don't have blops BS, covert cloaking ships, or wormholes where you live


Well I assumed that people would understand those other options, but obviously not.

When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.

Blocked: Teckos Pech, Sonya Corvinus, baltec1, Shae Tadaruwa, Wander Prian, Daichi Yamato, Jonah Gravenstein, Merin Ryskin, Linus Gorp

EvilweaselFinance
GoonCorp
Goonswarm Federation
#276 - 2015-03-09 16:34:08 UTC
afkalt wrote:
Smartbomb camps will pop up. I GUARANTEE it.


no they won't considering they don't work, as anyone who has ever tried one against inties knows
Promiscuous Female
GBS Logistics and Fives Support
Goonswarm Federation
#277 - 2015-03-09 16:34:09 UTC  |  Edited by: Promiscuous Female
afkalt wrote:
Promiscuous Female wrote:
afkalt wrote:

100km is plenty. 75km is plenty as it will either be orbiting or stationary, you'll catch it.

Also, territory defended. Op success.


A NOOB SHIP with a link can stop this nonsense, never mind something with weapons.


These are never in a million years going to be the terrors you're making out if you live in your space. I recall of a lot of chat about siphons and this exact thing being bandied about. "It's too easy", "we'll siphon every moon in the cosmos just because".

If you think the eve collective can't come up with creative ways to stop these (hint: 80m modules assumed to be on EVERY 'ceptor in a given window is a big incentive to pop these) I don't know what to tell you (but I'm buying up smartbombs before it's too late)

why do you keep repeating the part about stopping the capture when we keep telling you that isn't where our concerns lie

hell I will repeat it

the issue is the ability for the interceptor to run away once a force comes to stop it, the fact that it cannot be killed outside of serious pilot error

also you seem to have a funny concept of how distances work

hint: 110km > 100km



Recons are cloaky.


Smartbomb camps will pop up. I GUARANTEE it.

recons have sensor recal and terrible scan res and terrible speed while cloaked

also smartbomb camps require battleships with a quarter of the warp speed and require an interceptor pilot that is too stupid to bounce celestials
Favonius85
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#278 - 2015-03-09 16:34:29 UTC
Afterburner and Microwarpdrive Maximum Velocity Bonus = -90 %


This was the first thing I thought of after I read about the Entosis Link fittings question. Seems to address the concerns nicely.
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
#279 - 2015-03-09 16:34:47 UTC  |  Edited by: ISD Ezwal
John McCreedy wrote:
Dracvlad wrote:
*Snip* Please refrain from discussing forum moderation. ISD Ezwal.

The question about interceptors is a key one in terms of certain regions that are very difficult to get to, the first concept to work back to is the question of whether this requires regional defence or system defence. If you want it to be system defence the interceptors must be an option.

The issue of course comes in with the ability to get there, this is not Grrr Goons, but Goon Deklin is the example that I need to highlight, without the use of interceptors you give the Goons such a strategic advantage we might as well just give up, all they have to do is gate camp three gates, which will be behind other gate camps. Then you will give them free reign to run around doing what they want with very little fear about their home area.

It comes down to you CCP Fozzie thinking whether having people able to RF stuff with interceptors to grief balances off against the inability to get into Deklin space in any meaningful way.

I of course would prefer to have the ability to use interceptors as part of what I would call the softening up period, trying to throw the defender off balance by splitting their defence, but I would be happy to do that in a fair amount of 0.0 space without the ability of interceptors to get through bubbles and gate camps, but not killing me in terms of cost if lost, the only other ships that could do that are T3's but they cost.

So if you remove the ability to use interceptors you reduce the need for system defence!


No, it simply requires the attacker to put a little more planning in to their attack than simply jump in an especially fitted interceptor and burn all the way from Feythabolis to Deklien in order to knock VFK in to reinforce mode? What was that about nerfing power projection, CCP?


A single interceptor could not rf VFK, unless the majority of Goons were off on campaign, which is the point of what I was saying.

But in any case I rather like an impact on their speed when using the entosis link as an option.

When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.

Blocked: Teckos Pech, Sonya Corvinus, baltec1, Shae Tadaruwa, Wander Prian, Daichi Yamato, Jonah Gravenstein, Merin Ryskin, Linus Gorp

rsantos
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#280 - 2015-03-09 16:36:19 UTC  |  Edited by: ISD Ezwal
Promiscuous Female wrote:
afkalt wrote:
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.

A rapier can only web to 100km with gang boners

An arazu scram is under 75km

A cerberus has a maximum engagement window of 125km, its missiles take 12 seconds to go that far, while the interceptor starts at 110km (malediction) and has the benefit of dscan, a 2 second minimum warp deceleration window, and a cruiser's terrible lock time in which to heat its MWD and start burning away

none of these things require the malediction to have drugs, boners, or implants


Its not a F1 solution we know that!