These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Sougiro Seta
Stodwell Ltd.
#341 - 2015-03-09 17:35:58 UTC
All this **** is so wrong I agreed with Gevlon Goblin twice in a week.
Please stop.
EvilweaselFinance
GoonCorp
Goonswarm Federation
#342 - 2015-03-09 17:36:15 UTC
Ranger 1 wrote:

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?

we don't get fights with enemies in interceptors, a ship designed so you never have to take a fight you might lose
Veskrashen
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#343 - 2015-03-09 17:36:27 UTC
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 chuckleheads 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

You combat probe onto grid with them, and blap them before they leave grid. This isn't hard.

Or, alternatively, since you have links and they don't you simply fly faster than them and kill them. Again, this isn't hard.

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

Xavi Bastanold
T.R.I.A.D
Ushra'Khan
#344 - 2015-03-09 17:36:36 UTC
I don't really see a problem with trollceptors for the simple reason that 1000-man coalitions will always have a numbers advantage no matter the mechanics. As Stalin said, quantity has a quality all its own. So that's a given. What is more important is to create a mechanic that allows anywhere from 10 to 100 players to take a system, barring resistance. If a coalition responds then it's not going to happen, but if they don't then it happens.

Should a coalition system be taken, then the next question for the coalition is did they really want that system anyway? Maybe they just want fights and so that's great. On the hand, what if a neighboring coalition decides to allow a few systems to become independent buffers and spare themselves the added involvement. That frees them up to hammer the next-door coalition that's so intent on fighting every border battle. This sort of thing is good for EVE.

Good hunting,

Xavi

Killian Cormac
Cormac Distribution
#345 - 2015-03-09 17:36:46 UTC
EvilweaselFinance wrote:
the whole point is we're willing to fight


Doesn't sound like it.
Promiscuous Female
GBS Logistics and Fives Support
Goonswarm Federation
#346 - 2015-03-09 17:37:03 UTC
Ranger 1 wrote:
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.

interceptors don't generate fights, they run away

why would you contest sov with anything but the cheapest, most maneuverable ships in the new system
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#347 - 2015-03-09 17:37:14 UTC
afkalt 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.



A 100m isk, 2k EHP ship with a billion isk pod?

I'm sure they'll be ten-a-penny Roll


We toss around supercaps and titans like subcaps. Cost is in no way a barrier.
Promiscuous Female
GBS Logistics and Fives Support
Goonswarm Federation
#348 - 2015-03-09 17:38:35 UTC
Eli Apol wrote:
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?


the point is our numbers allow us to defend our sov, but the fact that you need goonswarm federation caliber supernumeracy to hold space is a bit of a problem for anyone else
Eli Apol
Definitely a nullsec alt
#349 - 2015-03-09 17:38:42 UTC  |  Edited by: Eli Apol
Promiscuous Female wrote:
Ranger 1 wrote:
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.

interceptors don't generate fights, they run away

why would you contest sov with anything but the cheapest, most maneuverable ships in the new system

Because they can be countered by a T1 ewar frig that's even cheaper - so long as there's someone awake in local anyways.

edit: Anyone noticed that goons have to blob the forums to try and win their arguments?

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

Arrendis
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#350 - 2015-03-09 17:39:27 UTC
First off, Fozzie, thank you for taking the time to give us a better idea of the intentions and thought process behind the Entosis Link. As you can see from many of the comments, the idea that the victory should go to the side that can maintain successful military control of a grid isn’t one the community feels is a bad idea. Yes, there are almost certainly people who will feel that measures like this are functionally nothing more than games of ‘capture the flag’, but to those individuals I say: What isn’t?

Blowing something up, after all, is really just node control - you carved out a period of time where you were able to click on the flag (ie: do dps) while the other team couldn’t do enough to stop you.

More importantly, ‘capture the flag’ itself is simulating objective control is actual warfare. It’s how people for a very long time have represented being able to take a location, or secure an objective, or destroy a target. So if something resembling the oldest form of wargaming finds its way into our game simulating war… where, exactly, is the problem?

That said, I believe the Entosis Link, by its very nature, falls short of some of your goals.

CCP Fozzie wrote:

The Entosis Link itself should have the minimum possible effect on what ships and tactics players can choose.

The restrictions and penalties on the Entosis Link should be as simple and understandable as possible.


If the Entosis Link is functioning as a barometer of the fight (or fights, in the case of multiple command node spawns) for control of a Sov Structure, then it makes sense that you don’t want it to effect the fitting of the ships used in these fights any more than necessary. It is, of course, almost impossible to do so - at the very least, as a module, it will take up one of the ship’s available slots. This, in turn, pushes the metagame toward ships with utility high-slots, such as Ishtars, Hurricanes, Tempests, etc*. Any ship that sacrifices a weapon to fit a link is reducing its contribution to actually controlling the grid, in favor of being what amounts to a battlefield reporter, letting CONCORD know what’s going on.

That’s suboptimal.

In addition, as you can see from the comments in this thread and the original one, the restrictions and penalties on the Entosis Link aren’t well-understood yet. Does it prevent cloaking? If it doesn’t, does the module deactivate as soon as you cloak, or does it complete its cycle? If it completes its cycle, does that cycle ‘count’ for the structure?

And that’s just asking about a Cloaking Device.

As a module, the Entosis Link cannot help but affect the combat effectiveness of available fittings, and through that, the choice of viable ships to use the link and what role those ships play in the larger combat.

But what if it’s not a module?

My first thought was an implant - but then you can’t have it not effectively interfering with allies’ defense. What would be needed instead would be some form of social construct that allowed players and organizations to select which ‘link’ (or links) the structure/command node is influenced by at any given time.

Like a fleet.

If, instead of a new module, a new fleet mechanic was used as your barometer, then fitting requirements and concerns, and the attendant ship selection issues, all vanish. Come up with a snappy name for it, like ‘Fleet Colors’ or ‘Fleet Standard’, except actually snappy and not really, really bad like those two.

The idea here is that a given fleet represents a given Alliance. A fleet forming in defense of an FCON station represents FCON’s presence on-grid and potential control of the grid. A fleet representing Goonswarm on that same grid doesn’t make FCON’s space any more FCON.

Obviously, then, you need to have a method for determining who the fleet is representing. The equally obvious metric is ‘who’s in the fleet?’ While single-alliance fleets might seem like the way to approach this, it’s also likely this will simply see the current blocs consolidating into as few alliances as possible in order to simplify defense and coordination - in effect, creating ‘CFC 1’, ‘CFC 2’, ‘N3 1’, ‘N3 2’ etc, with membership based purely on regional location, and member corps ‘deploying’ from one alliance to another within the same bloc.

Which, while it might be rather amusing to watch, won’t really solve anything.

Instead, as a simple framework, I suggest simply using leadership. The Fleet Commander is the obvious point, but this introduces a single point-of-failure, and as we all know, single points-of-failure are bad. But a fleet ranges in size from 2 people to 256, with anywhere from 1 to 31 leadership positions. Use those. 51% of a fleet’s leadership positions (Fleet Commander, Wing Commanders, Squad Commanders) would have to be members of the same alliance in order for that fleet to represent that alliance in Sov warfare. Hodge-podge fleets where no single alliance is capable of mustering 51% of the leadership would simply not exert an influence on grid control, but alliances able to muster a solid leadership cadre would be able to take advantage of allies willing to fly under their colors.

In addition, each fleet would only be able to influence a single Sov Node (structure or command node) at a time. This way, rather than (to continue our example), FCON forming up a single fleet and contributing 16 people (51% of the maximum number of leadership positions) in order to defend 10 Command nodes, while CONDI, RZR, etc fill out the fleet in warm bodies, the leadership of the defense would need to fall on the shoulders of the defending alliance. Of course, filling a fleet with warm bodies opens the door to spies reporting precisely which pilots are in leadership positions, and so need to be killed in order to cripple a fleet’s influence.

(Continued)
Sougiro Seta
Stodwell Ltd.
#351 - 2015-03-09 17:39:59 UTC  |  Edited by: Sougiro Seta
Killian Cormac wrote:
EvilweaselFinance wrote:
the whole point is we're willing to fight


Doesn't sound like it.

fighting ~ spend 4h a day shooting space gypsies flying frigates/t1 cruisers, that's a job. Challenging a sov should be accesible to even 5 players alliances, but at least they should risk something.
Arrendis
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#352 - 2015-03-09 17:40:14 UTC
(Continued from above)

Fleet Influence on a sov node would function in a manner similar to the Entosis Links - at 51% of the leadership of a fleet being from a single alliance, the effective range of that influence would be limited to 25km from the nearest command-level ship to the Node or structure. At 75%, the range increases to 50km, and at 100%, 200km. Similarly, the fleet’s influence does not effect the node/structure until the node/structure has been in range for 5 minutes for 51%, 3m for 75%, or 2m at 100% alliance leadership. Any ship which is cloaked or off-grid in a leadership position would not count toward establishing Fleet Influence.

This way, in order for a fleet to actually represent its alliance, the leadership of the fleet must be on-grid, uncloaked, and vulnerable. Defending leadership assets would become of critical importance.

Obviously, it’s not a perfect proposal - you can’t reasonably have all of your fleet’s leadership unable to be remotely repaired in most fights, but at the same time, without that vulnerability, how do you prevent node contests from simply devolving into ‘drop supers on it’?

At the other end of the scale, though, a trollceptor is not going to control a grid - unless it’s unopposed, in which case it certainly should. Undefended space, poorly defended space, these things shouldn’t take a lot of pushing in order to topple. And sovholders should definitely be required to show up for the defense of their own space. The idea of leaving the defense to ‘Papa Goon’ or some renter alliance’s landlord coalition would only leave us with the current sprawling morass of systems that nobody with the wherewithal to take and hold sov wants to live in, but plenty of people who don’t have the strength to stake their own claims are willing to rent out. This only serves to stifle any hope of a dynamic nullsec, and funnel money into the pockets of the Coalition landlords.

But when there’s a fight - and there should be fights - the Command Node system will effectively force responding forces to spread out around the constellation in order to facilitate defense (or capture). There will have to be multiple responders, after all, or it’s simply a case of ‘the fastest ship wins’, and that’s really not in keeping with the idea that this is meant to represent effective military control of space.

What’s needed under this idea is a way to prevent every fight from simply becoming an escalation to ‘who has supercapitals nearby to drop on the nodes?’ The jump changes helped in this regard, but only to the point where subcapitals would now be used as skirmishers to delay any hostile victory until the supercapitals can arrive to lock down the node/structure.

Even with that obvious work still to be done, I feel this idea better matches your goals than the use of a new module does.


*- NOTE: These are examples of utility high slot ships, not necessarily optimal ships for any given situation.
Promiscuous Female
GBS Logistics and Fives Support
Goonswarm Federation
#353 - 2015-03-09 17:40:39 UTC  |  Edited by: ISD Ezwal
Veskrashen 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

You combat probe onto grid with them, and blap them before they leave grid. This isn't hard.

Or, alternatively, since you have links and they don't you simply fly faster than them and kill them. Again, this isn't hard.

they must not have dscan where you live

"oh hrm combat probes on dscan, maybe i should stay here"
EvilweaselFinance
GoonCorp
Goonswarm Federation
#354 - 2015-03-09 17:41:08 UTC
Killian Cormac wrote:
EvilweaselFinance wrote:
the whole point is we're willing to fight


Doesn't sound like it.

we have the npc/moa crowd demanding to use ships that absolutely cannot be caught for their entosis hulls, while we're saying that we're fine with anything that will actually be at risk and we can blow up because then we get to blow it up

sounds like you have a reading problem to me
Promiscuous Female
GBS Logistics and Fives Support
Goonswarm Federation
#355 - 2015-03-09 17:41:40 UTC
Eli Apol wrote:

Because they can be countered by a T1 ewar frig that's even cheaper - so long as there's someone awake in local anyways.

edit: Anyone noticed that goons have to blob the forums to try and win their arguments?

you counter an interceptor at one capture node / sov structure and it just shrugs and goes to another one

nothing warps faster than an interceptor so enjoy spewing logarithmically increasing numbers of evemannen to bore out a single interceptor
Killian Cormac
Cormac Distribution
#356 - 2015-03-09 17:42:53 UTC
Promiscuous Female wrote:
interceptors don't generate fights


Interceptors destabilize sov, and the threat of losing sov DOES generate fights, with plenty of advance notice.
Corey Lean
No Vacancies
No Vacancies.
#357 - 2015-03-09 17:43:17 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

Haha what, people try to fight you all day long but you run away..in your interceptors and stealth bombers. At least you finally came clean about wanting sov though Smile
Eli Apol
Definitely a nullsec alt
#358 - 2015-03-09 17:43:26 UTC
Promiscuous Female wrote:
Eli Apol wrote:

Because they can be countered by a T1 ewar frig that's even cheaper - so long as there's someone awake in local anyways.

edit: Anyone noticed that goons have to blob the forums to try and win their arguments?

you counter an interceptor at one capture node / sov structure and it just shrugs and goes to another one

nothing warps faster than an interceptor so enjoy spewing logarithmically increasing numbers of evemannen to bore out a single interceptor

I think you mean "Nothing warps faster than an interceptor using an entosis link that can't even start its warp for 2 minutes..."

And the fallacy is revealed...because pretty much everything other than a freighter can do that.

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

Alp Khan
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#359 - 2015-03-09 17:43:29 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.


With that he also misses the ridiculousness of people who comment on sov null individual income with no prior null experience.
Primary This Rifter
Mutual Fund of the Something
#360 - 2015-03-09 17:43:44 UTC
Killian Cormac wrote:
EvilweaselFinance wrote:
the whole point is we're willing to fight


Doesn't sound like it.

See:
Promiscuous Female wrote:
Ranger 1 wrote:
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.

interceptors don't generate fights, they run away

why would you contest sov with anything but the cheapest, most maneuverable ships in the new system