These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Amyclas Amatin
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#321 - 2015-03-09 17:20:08 UTC
MASSADEATH wrote:
Does not seem too hard to counter this..just put your own entosis module on the structure...bam problem solved...

or spread a fleet of sniping corms around the structure.... insta pop ceptors....

All I see is goon tears and they are filling up my cup

We will be enjoying this new form of SOV ..and any alliances that cannot hold their sov...will naturally contract back to a point where they have the manpower to hold it.

The whole point is to end the sprawling wasteland of empty SOV space.... and this should do it. If a 30,000 man alliance cant have a few people with entosis ships on the standby to stop SOV attacks on thier structures then they dont deserve that space.



What will happen to any alliance that can't win on the field is that they will lose all their space. The system is very brittle in terms of points of failure. You can't afford to lose on the defensive.

You can try reffing all of pure blind, we might even withdraw from many areas that we don't live in. But we won't allow you to use it.

For more information on the New Order of High-Sec, please visit: http://www.minerbumping.com/

Remember that whenever you have a bad day in EVE, the correct reponse is "Thank you CCP, may I please have another?"

Corey Lean
No Vacancies
Wardec Mechanics
#322 - 2015-03-09 17:20:36 UTC
MASSADEATH wrote:
The whole point is to end the sprawling wasteland of empty SOV space.... and this should do it. If a 30,000 man alliance cant have a few people with entosis ships on the standby to stop SOV attacks on thier structures then they dont deserve that space


No the point is about fights. Mr. Fozzie the the design goals and end-state of all these changes is to generate fights by controlling the grid through force of arms, not slippery petes or interceptors. So that should exclude the usual suspects from this conversation about sovereignty.
Eli Apol
Definitely a nullsec alt
#323 - 2015-03-09 17:21:47 UTC
Promiscuous Female wrote:
yeah actually i do find it pretty tiring to have to slog through two hours of crap in order to unearth the nuggets of information i need to actually be able to play the game because there is some fear or impotence in the arena of even echoing the information on the official communications mechanisms

Nothing that interesting was really said except 'Trollceptors can easily get nerf-batted if they get out of hand'

There ya go, saved you 2 hours and about 150 pages of Goon forum posts.

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

Killian Cormac
Cormac Distribution
#324 - 2015-03-09 17:23:47 UTC
Amyclas Amatin wrote:
A smaller organization would thus be unable to control more than a single constellation. And even then, with mandatory 4 hour daily CTAs, and without reserve manpower and reserve timezones to rotate into when people burnout.


Sounds like more churn and more activity to me!

I guarantee that while the few big players in the current sov map are clutching at pearls, there are hundreds of smaller organizations who have started talking about what holding a constellation might mean for their game. Most of them will fail. What does it matter? The point is in having fun in the attempt.

A constantly-changing sov landscape, where assets are lost and there is a high rate of burnout, is vastly preferable to the stagnant blue donut that we made fun of the Chinese for on Serenity.
Andrea Keuvo
Rusty Pricks
#325 - 2015-03-09 17:25:02 UTC
Arkon Olacar wrote:
Maximus Andendare wrote:
Arkon Olacar wrote:
Hero owns 98 systems in Catch, and 38 stations. We now need 136 mauluses to spend 4 hours a night sitting on an ihub/station. Except of course if these trollceptors have any kind of weapons, it can kill the maulus, so we partner them with a RLML caracal to prevent that from happening. There, we've kept one of the most densely populated regions in the game save from trollceptors, and it only costs us 1088 man hours per night!

I think you're missing the point. (Not just you, but you stated your (major Sov holder's) point eloquently enough.) If it's a bother to defend your sovereignty, then 1) maybe you should question the amount you possess and 2) if you're not willing to put forth the effort to defend it, then perhaps it should be lost. I'm not speaking specifically to the trollceptor "ruckus" per se; it's more addressing the complaints that defending sovereignty will be too difficult. Sovereignty shouldn't so easy to defend that you can do it with a corp full of dis-interested recruits. If you want to keep sov, then it should be something that you and your corp want to defend. As it is, CCP is giving Sov holders the ability to lock out people from reinforcing their structures until a time set by the owner. If the owner can't find it in them to defend their home in a nice four hour block of their choosing, then it sounds more like the sov holder should reassess their priorities.


Bolded the important part.

You've hit the nail on the head here. These mechanics cause too much grief for the defender to be worth the benefits of holding sov. The end result will be people moving out of sov null, with sov holders largely staging and living out of nearby NPC nullsec or lowsec, holding regions as a form of content generation rather than actually living there.

These mechanics as currently proposed would kill off nullsec, not revitalise it.



This is 100% the problem and Fozzie refuses to acknowledge it because he can look at the numbers and see that "sh*t tons of isk are made in nullsec anoms" or whatever he said. The numbers I would like to see is how much ISK is being made from anoms grouped by truesec level because I have a feeling that a large percentage of the isk is being generated in the small number of systems with -.6 truesec or better.

Why is this an issue? Because under occupancy based fozziesov somewhere between 2/3 and 3/4 of nullsec is no longer worth the effort to live in. The only way sov null systems can provide hisec levels of income for their residents is through the Ihub upgrades that cause anomalies to automatically respawn each time they are completed. The type and number of each anomoly that can spawn is influenced by the military level of the system and the level of sov upgrade but is also hard capped by the system's truesec - a fully upgraded mil 5 -.4 system is never going to have a sanctum automatically spawned.

An 'average' sov null system with -.4 truesec at mil 5 and fully upgraded has a bunch of anomalies on scan. However, the vast majority give less than hisec missioning level of income so people only run a limited set of sites - forsaken hub, forsaken rally point, haven, and sanctum. The sample -.4 fully upgraded and at mil 5 gets 2x forsaken hub, 2x forsaken rallypoint, and 1x haven. This allows the system to support 2-3 players running sites at the same time making around or slightly above hisec level income. If you don't have the level 5 upgrade you lose one forsaken hub and the haven, meaning now this system can provide hisec level income for only one pilot. In systems below -.4 truesec it is even worse.

The level 5 upgrade for anomalies is too large to fit in a jump freighter and can only be brought in using a regular freighter via a hisec wormhole. A freighter sized wormhole to hisec doesn't come along every day so getting this upgrade installed is not a trivial matter. In the current sov system this upgrade is protected by the massive investment of grinding the hp of defensive SBUs, dropping/defending your own SBUs, and then grinding the 75M+ HP of the Ihub over 2 reinforcement timers. Under fozziesov I can come reinforce your Ihub, and then come back and win the 2nd timer and your Ihub and all its upgrades go boom, effectively making the system 100% useless to you until you can again find a wormhole from hisec to bring in the level 5 upgrade and start the process over again.

The point here is, why in the hell would anyone want to do this? Right now these systems are typically rented out and are protected by the sheer HP grind and the knowledge that they will be defended by the landlord. Under fozziesov, without committing a supercapital fleet an attacker could come and reinforce 10 ihubs. This creates 10 timers which all cannot possibly be defended.

So while this probably kills rental empires as we know them it also makes nullsec systems below -.5 or -.6 truesec into space ghettos that are not worth the effort to live in. Let's say your smallish corp takes an unused -.3 and goes thru the effort to upgrade it. It will only be a matter of time before a larger pvp alliance comes along to kick down your castle. So why would you do this when you can stay in hisec and make as much/more isk with incursions/missions?

An occupancy based sov system where the best systems can support at most a half a dozen occupants and the worst aren't worth occupying at all is doomed to end in failure. Anomoly quality needs to be decoupled from truesec so that over time even the lower quality systems are worth living in.
Promiscuous Female
GBS Logistics and Fives Support
Goonswarm Federation
#326 - 2015-03-09 17:26:01 UTC
Eli Apol wrote:
Promiscuous Female wrote:
yeah actually i do find it pretty tiring to have to slog through two hours of crap in order to unearth the nuggets of information i need to actually be able to play the game because there is some fear or impotence in the arena of even echoing the information on the official communications mechanisms

Nothing that interesting was really said except 'Trollceptors can easily get nerf-batted if they get out of hand'

There ya go, saved you 2 hours and about 150 pages of Goon forum posts.

actually there was a lot more on it

relevant details include the cementing of afk cloaking as a game mechanic into the future, designs on removing immediate mode local in nullsec, and the castration of supercapital ships into fleet boosters (which can't happen until the destiny rewrite is finished anyways so lol if you think the fleet boosting aspect will come before the gelding does)

but yeah i could see where cherrypicking the only thing relevant to your argument would help against someone not paying attention
Elenahina
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#327 - 2015-03-09 17:26:09 UTC
DeadDuck wrote:
restrict the enthosis link to cap ships.


Say hello to the new meta - same as the old meta, but now worse, because you HAVE to have caps and supers to take sov.

Thanks no.

Eve is like an addiction; you can't quit it until it quits you. Also, iderno

Gevlon Goblin
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#328 - 2015-03-09 17:26:55 UTC
This argument over interceptors completely misses the problem with the proposed Entosis mechanic: The "trollceptor" isn't impossible to catch, it's unworthy to catch. People PvP for 4 reasons:

  1. Fat killmails. Entosis ships will be cheaper than a Retriever.
  2. Tears of the enemy. Entosis ships are sent out to die, no one will cry over them.
  3. "Kudos" for being good. An Entosis ship is a lone (very fast) sitting ducks orbiting a structure with a warning sign over it. It'll likely be AFK.
  4. To win. You'll never win. You can save/take the timer today, but as the enemy suffered no losses, he'll be back. Or someone else, like a drunken highsec miner in a 1 day old alt and takes your Sov if you let down your guard just once.


So a player has zero reason to hunt them. The alliance has, so people will be red pen CTA-d/paplinked into Entosis fleets and will hate it. Living in Sov will be a forever grind of mandatory Entosis-frig hunting. While there were crying over the boredom of structure grind, you could at least hope for an escalation. No one will escalate a tackled frigate. In structure grind, you were at least in a fleet, half-AFK, chatting. In Entosis duty, you'll be all alone, orbiting a structure.

If it will be introduced, everyone who considers EVE a game will leave nullsec. The obsessive-compulsive will orbit the structures with 32 accounts (likely with bots).

My blog: greedygoblin.blogspot.com

Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#329 - 2015-03-09 17:28:01 UTC
Promiscuous Female wrote:
Killian Cormac wrote:
FT Diomedes wrote:
Only the largest alliances really have a chance of holding even a single region when faced with opportunistic and agile enemies.


If this isn't a design goal, it should be. The largest player organizations shouldn't be able to control more than the largest named area to begin with.

this is a pretty romantic idea but it breaks down in practice due to the geography of eve

in order to live in places like the drone regions, period basis, and most of the south, you either need to own or be friendly with the folks in regions closer to empire or your space is completely worthless

fortunately deklein does not fall prey to this so personally i'm okay with the idea, for what it's worth

Interesting that people jump completely past the very true statement made above and immediately assume the point is that the person speaking is interested in "taking someone's space". Big smile

If troll 'ceptors converge on your space, you simply need to have enough players or preferably alts to cover all of the necessary structures with 1 Entosis link each. Put them in a tanked cruiser or whatever and ignore it unless it's attacked directly.

If your alliance doesn't have enough alts / players willing to cover all of your capturable structures, then you are attempting to hold more territory than you can control and deserve to loose it to anyone willing to take it by this method.

If you DO have plenty of alts / players to put one ship in each important point... those trollceptor attacks are pointless and their frequency will (overall) drop off after awhile. Of course, there will be resurgences... but that's the nature of the beast.

Point being, your entire organization doesn't need to be trying to kill interceptors constantly, just devote the necessary number of ships to keep an Entosis point on your important stuff. If you can't do that, scale back a bit until you can.

View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents: Virtual Realms.

MASSADEATH
MASS A DEATH
Mordus Angels
#330 - 2015-03-09 17:28:01 UTC
Amyclas Amatin wrote:
MASSADEATH wrote:
Does not seem too hard to counter this..just put your own entosis module on the structure...bam problem solved...

or spread a fleet of sniping corms around the structure.... insta pop ceptors....

All I see is goon tears and they are filling up my cup

We will be enjoying this new form of SOV ..and any alliances that cannot hold their sov...will naturally contract back to a point where they have the manpower to hold it.

The whole point is to end the sprawling wasteland of empty SOV space.... and this should do it. If a 30,000 man alliance cant have a few people with entosis ships on the standby to stop SOV attacks on thier structures then they dont deserve that space.



What will happen to any alliance that can't win on the field is that they will lose all their space. The system is very brittle in terms of points of failure. You can't afford to lose on the defensive.

You can try reffing all of pure blind, we might even withdraw from many areas that we don't live in. But we won't allow you to use it.



Its ok..... you can stage out of X-70 and become"NPC trash" as well :)

we have no delusions of holding SOV..we will however take some :) and then lose it..and take it again..and lose it... ect ect

The fun will be roaming fleets of "sov ships" RFing multiple Goon/CFC systems at once... and then the rolling system fights to see if you can hold it. Forget killing your ratters.... we will be in the business of killing IHUBS :) and TCU's..so stock up :)

will we be perma dropping on your goodies ...so enjoy...
Elenahina
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#331 - 2015-03-09 17:28:40 UTC
Super Noodle wrote:
Fozzie, can you please scrap this entire plan you've come up with to rework sov and start over from scratch. It's garbage.


No, it's really not. There are some issues, but it's better than what we have now.

Of course tunnelling out of Alcatraz with a plastic spoon would be better than what we have now.

Eve is like an addiction; you can't quit it until it quits you. Also, iderno

Killian Cormac
Cormac Distribution
#332 - 2015-03-09 17:29:18 UTC
Promiscuous Female wrote:
Killian Cormac wrote:

If we can't dream in a fantasy game, where can we dream?

eve is a sci-fi game not fantasy

checkmate b*tch Twisted


Just because it has space ships doesn't make it science fiction.
MASSADEATH
MASS A DEATH
Mordus Angels
#333 - 2015-03-09 17:31:07 UTC
Corey Lean wrote:
MASSADEATH wrote:
The whole point is to end the sprawling wasteland of empty SOV space.... and this should do it. If a 30,000 man alliance cant have a few people with entosis ships on the standby to stop SOV attacks on thier structures then they dont deserve that space


No the point is about fights. Mr. Fozzie the the design goals and end-state of all these changes is to generate fights by controlling the grid through force of arms, not slippery petes or interceptors. So that should exclude the usual suspects from this conversation about sovereignty.




so come out and fight...it will be YOUR choice to defend YOUR space or not..... maybe you will have to PvP instead of ratting 24/7?

or perhaps you will be forced into 1-5 systems instead of who knows how many you guys "own" And i use the word "own" loosely as they are empty anyway. Forget the past...this is the new future....and it seems to be burning BRIGHT :)

What CCP needs to do..is tie POS/moon goo to SOV as well.... so it breaks your ISK control over the game :)
EvilweaselFinance
GoonCorp
Goonswarm Federation
#334 - 2015-03-09 17:31:34 UTC
MASSADEATH wrote:

so come out and fight...it will be YOUR choice to defend YOUR space or not..... maybe you will have to PvP instead of ratting 24/7?

the whole point is we're willing to fight, but you won't be
Promiscuous Female
GBS Logistics and Fives Support
Goonswarm Federation
#335 - 2015-03-09 17:32:47 UTC
Ranger 1 wrote:

Point being, your entire organization doesn't need to be trying to kill interceptors constantly, just devote the necessary number of ships to keep an Entosis point on your important stuff. If you can't do that, scale back a bit until you can.

the fact that we can easily do exactly this is immaterial to the point
Amyclas Amatin
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#336 - 2015-03-09 17:34:10 UTC
MASSADEATH wrote:
Corey Lean wrote:
MASSADEATH wrote:
The whole point is to end the sprawling wasteland of empty SOV space.... and this should do it. If a 30,000 man alliance cant have a few people with entosis ships on the standby to stop SOV attacks on thier structures then they dont deserve that space


No the point is about fights. Mr. Fozzie the the design goals and end-state of all these changes is to generate fights by controlling the grid through force of arms, not slippery petes or interceptors. So that should exclude the usual suspects from this conversation about sovereignty.




so come out and fight...it will be YOUR choice to defend YOUR space or not..... maybe you will have to PvP instead of ratting 24/7?

or perhaps you will be forced into 1-5 systems instead of who knows how many you guys "own" And i use the word "own" loosely as they are empty anyway. Forget the past...this is the new future....and it seems to be burning BRIGHT :)

What CCP needs to do..is tie POS/moon goo to SOV as well.... so it breaks your ISK control over the game :)


You and what army is going to force the 5 of us who actually log in with our 6000 accounts each into what constellation?

For more information on the New Order of High-Sec, please visit: http://www.minerbumping.com/

Remember that whenever you have a bad day in EVE, the correct reponse is "Thank you CCP, may I please have another?"

Primary This Rifter
Mutual Fund of the Something
#337 - 2015-03-09 17:34:28 UTC
Johnny Twelvebore wrote:
All this complaining about "trollceptors" is making my head hurt.

If your problem is a ceptor which is fit to lock at 200km then it's combat viability is almost zero, use another fast ship to kill it - as the rules currently stand it cannot warp with the new module active. There are plenty of fast missile ships to choose from.

End of discussion, if your multi thousand man sov holding entity cannot catch one ceptor which is essentially already tackled by virtue of using it's sov module then perhaps you don't deserve that sov.

Alternatively I would be happy to accept ISK to come and teach you how to fly.

I hear wild goose chases make for fun and engaging gameplay.
xttz
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#338 - 2015-03-09 17:34:40 UTC
Gevlon Goblin wrote:
This argument over interceptors completely misses the problem with the proposed Entosis mechanic: The "trollceptor" isn't impossible to catch, it's unworthy to catch. People PvP for 4 reasons:

  1. Fat killmails. Entosis ships will be cheaper than a Retriever.
  2. Tears of the enemy. Entosis ships are sent out to die, no one will cry over them.
  3. "Kudos" for being good. An Entosis ship is a lone (very fast) sitting ducks orbiting a structure with a warning sign over it. It'll likely be AFK.
  4. To win. You'll never win. You can save/take the timer today, but as the enemy suffered no losses, he'll be back. Or someone else, like a drunken highsec miner in a 1 day old alt and takes your Sov if you let down your guard just once.


So a player has zero reason to hunt them. The alliance has, so people will be red pen CTA-d/paplinked into Entosis fleets and will hate it. Living in Sov will be a forever grind of mandatory Entosis-frig hunting. While there were crying over the boredom of structure grind, you could at least hope for an escalation. No one will escalate a tackled frigate. In structure grind, you were at least in a fleet, half-AFK, chatting. In Entosis duty, you'll be all alone, orbiting a structure.

If it will be introduced, everyone who considers EVE a game will leave nullsec. The obsessive-compulsive will orbit the structures with 32 accounts (likely with bots).



Who are you and why are you making good posts with Gevlon's character
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#339 - 2015-03-09 17:35:21 UTC
Amyclas Amatin wrote:
MASSADEATH wrote:
Does not seem too hard to counter this..just put your own entosis module on the structure...bam problem solved...

or spread a fleet of sniping corms around the structure.... insta pop ceptors....

All I see is goon tears and they are filling up my cup

We will be enjoying this new form of SOV ..and any alliances that cannot hold their sov...will naturally contract back to a point where they have the manpower to hold it.

The whole point is to end the sprawling wasteland of empty SOV space.... and this should do it. If a 30,000 man alliance cant have a few people with entosis ships on the standby to stop SOV attacks on thier structures then they dont deserve that space.



What will happen to any alliance that can't win on the field is that they will lose all their space. The system is very brittle in terms of points of failure. You can't afford to lose on the defensive.

You can try reffing all of pure blind, we might even withdraw from many areas that we don't live in. But we won't allow you to use it.


So.... your area of control shrinks to something manageable and the downside is that you get lots more good fights close to home with people you've likely never seen before?

For other folks they get the chance to make a stake and experience 0.0. Even if they can't hold their sov, they have fun and perhaps find an area where they DO manage to hang on and grow?

I'm not really seeing a downside here... for anyone.

View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents: Virtual Realms.

Eli Apol
Definitely a nullsec alt
#340 - 2015-03-09 17:35:55 UTC
Amyclas Amatin wrote:
You and what army is going to force the 5 of us who actually log in with our 6000 accounts each into what constellation?

What army do we need? I thought absolutely any single player can just jump in an interceptor and roam about Deklein for a lark...we don't need an army/blob remember?

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