These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Veskrashen
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#1001 - 2015-03-10 11:53:18 UTC
Alavaria Fera wrote:
Yes, it should be quite like structure shooting, writ small. After all, your drakes must stay on grid until the hp bar gets to where it reinforces, so you should stay on grid until the sov laser gets the sov laser bar thing to the reinforce point.

Exactly! Stay on grid until the job is done, or don't make any progress at all.

Glad to see you're starting to get it.

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

Wolf Kruol
Suicide Squad Gamma
#1002 - 2015-03-10 11:54:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Wolf Kruol
I think that any ship ceptor or carrier using the entosis link in those nodes should be a sitting duck during the cycle time. Vulnerable and easy to kill. Let there be support fleet to defend the weakened hacker ship. If not troller won't last long if challenged. :)

Option of the defend to destroy or just nullify the timer or both is perfect.. Its hard to assume what needs tweaking till something is in practice. Then we have a better idea what needs tweaking.

I like these changes give anyone a chance to do something positive and / or negative to claimed space that isn't protected or is. CCP great idea. I hated the bashing structures... Big smile

oh if players are having a hard on for which ships to be restricted to using this Entosis link.. I say make it exclusive for titans. Give titans more life in this game aside from being mobile gates and very big hunks of metal. Seriously titans needs some love... They've been nerfed to extinction.. well almost.. P

“If you're very very stupid? How can you possibly realize you're very very stupid?

You have to be relatively intelligent to realize how stupid you really are!”

Veskrashen
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#1003 - 2015-03-10 11:57:16 UTC
Promiscuous Female wrote:
while this system shares some blood with faction warfare, it's not faction warfare

there are no acceleration gates forcing all contenders into a tiny spit of space where they can be engaged at will

you have to try a little harder in 0.0

Yup, you do. If you want to be a Big Bad Sov Holding Coalition with your name on the map, step up and do the work.

You've got all the tools you need to counter the mythical invulnerable uncatchable uncounterable Trollceptor, so use them. If you're not good enough to do so, then you don't deserve your space.

FW plex mechanics have their own pluses and minuses. Starting every fight at zero is one of them. Which is why fights in Larges are so much different than in Novice, Small and Medium plexes. But hey - we're FW pilots, not self entitled pansy nullbears. We adapt.

Do the same, or lose your space, either one is fine by me.

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

Veskrashen
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#1004 - 2015-03-10 12:05:47 UTC
Regarding fuel for the Entosis Link:

It's not a bad idea, but really really changes the dynamic in that the idea ships then become cloaky boats with large cargo holds - Cloaky Nullified T3s, for example. Plus those groups with good logistics. It just seems like another way to force the module to be used on larger, slower hulls that are easier to catch on grid, interdict with bubbled gate camps, and the like.

The better solution, IMO, is to focus on cap use of the module. Interceptors already have pretty fragile capacitors, so giving the Entosis Link a non-trivial cap use would force other compromises. You could use it on an Inty, for example, but you'd need to dedicate fitting slots to cap rechargers and cap batteries and the like to keep both it and an MWD running. It would be a light enough touch - one of CCP's design goals - that would allow a lot of fleet comp variety and not unnecessarily lock it out of use by small, fast, interdiction nullified hulls.

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

Phoenix Jones
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#1005 - 2015-03-10 12:21:19 UTC
I've been going over this in my mind. Really the only issues with the module and the ships is speed, interceptor (bubble immunity), cloaky ships, and T3's (cloaky bubble immune).

You can address two of the issues simply by denying the ability to equip both a cloaking device and this Entosis module. This way you can still use a cloaky ship to do a capture, but they would have to remove their cloaking device, refit the entosis module, then go in. If they get caught and run, they would still have to unequip the entosis module, equip a cloak, and cloak. This gives a benefit to the defender in regards to catching, probing and destroying a cloaky camper. This means that mobile depots become more important.

In otherwords, you do not do a ship restriction, you do a module restriction (that being any type of cloaking device).

Yaay!!!!

Jori McKie
Horde Vanguard.
Pandemic Horde
#1006 - 2015-03-10 12:44:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Jori McKie
Veskrashen wrote:
Regarding fuel for the Entosis Link:

It's not a bad idea, but really really changes the dynamic in that the idea ships then become cloaky boats with large cargo holds - Cloaky Nullified T3s, for example. Plus those groups with good logistics. It just seems like another way to force the module to be used on larger, slower hulls that are easier to catch on grid, interdict with bubbled gate camps, and the like.

The better solution, IMO, is to focus on cap use of the module. Interceptors already have pretty fragile capacitors, so giving the Entosis Link a non-trivial cap use would force other compromises. You could use it on an Inty, for example, but you'd need to dedicate fitting slots to cap rechargers and cap batteries and the like to keep both it and an MWD running. It would be a light enough touch - one of CCP's design goals - that would allow a lot of fleet comp variety and not unnecessarily lock it out of use by small, fast, interdiction nullified hulls.


Yes, cap pressure would be an option too. The point is no ship should be able to run around for an unlimited amount of time and be able to challenge sov.
So with cap pressure you have to make sure the Ceptor has to fit a cap booster and can't circumvent the cap pressure via rigs or med slots. You have the same mechanic then as SilentAsTheGrave and i suggest.
Refueling on a large scale is an effort if you only want to troll but not if you mean it serious.
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5568732#post5568732
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5568781#post5568781

Edit:
Cloaky/Nullifed T3 won't have a real big cargo hold, ~1000 m3 depending on the T3.

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." - Abrazzar

Veskrashen
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#1007 - 2015-03-10 12:44:55 UTC
Phoenix Jones wrote:
I've been going over this in my mind. Really the only issues with the module and the ships is speed, interceptor (bubble immunity), cloaky ships, and T3's (cloaky bubble immune).

None of those are actually problems.

1. Bubble immunity is an awesome thing - it allows you to get into deep enemy sov space with reasonable effort. You need to have bubble immune ships able to equip and use Entosis Links, because that puts ALL sov space at risk all the same time during your chosen window of vulnerability. There's no ability to secure a "border" and have deep areas of sov null untouchable havens of isk-spewing fountains.

2. Cloaks are also not an issue. If you're cloaked, you have no lock, therefore you can't make any progress. If the defender can undo your work while you're cloaked, you've accomplished nothing. Cloaks don't make you uncatchable or immune to dying - and in fact, since an Entosis Link will keep you from warping off while it's active, you're easier to catch. The only real change that we need to ensure is implemented is that having an Entosis Link active (i.e. still in it's active cycle like Bastion / Triage / Siege) prevents the activation of a cloaking device. If that happens, cloaks will be a viable tool to get yourself into position, but won't help you survive if there's active defenders.

3. Cloaky Nullified T3s have the advantage of being able to penetrate into deep sov space, and have the ability to pick their fights. They are indeed big threats. They are also, however, not invulnerable - you make a lot of tradeoffs to get that cloak and interdiction nullification, in terms of DPS / tank / projection / mobility. If Entosis Links prevent you from re-cloaking while active, Cloaky Nullified T3s will be fairly easy to catch and make for nice tasty shiny killmails when caught.

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

Ukiah Oregan
Lithomancers
#1008 - 2015-03-10 12:45:11 UTC
Andrea Keuvo wrote:
[quote=Arkon Olacar][quote=Maximus Andendare][quote=Arkon Olacar]

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. Anomaly quality needs to be decoupled from truesec so that over time even the lower quality systems are worth living in.




CCP,

You really need to set back and look at the basics. I really believe null sec is so broken that you [CCP] can't see the trees for the forest!

there are only a few select systems that are truly profitable in each null sec region

null sec should be completely lawless and 100% risk

stations in null sec provides virtually zero risk to pilots/corps with no stake in the alliance

stations going "open port" only decreases the risk to player assets

current SOV system and proposed changes sucks - it is still based on politics not warfare outcome

why keep making SOV mechanics = why not make this a sandbox experience and let the players create their on warfare ?

who cares who owns a null sec system ? it's completely lawless

on the other hand:

POS = 100% risk - they can be destroyed with all assets lost/salvaged = which means = invested interest in protecting said POS by every player associated to said POS

living out of POS is hard compared to station living = and full of risk = should equal high reward = only the most determined will do it

make every null sec system worth occupying - until you [CCP] do this nothing else you [CCP] do will fix null sec





Veskrashen
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#1009 - 2015-03-10 12:47:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Veskrashen
Jori McKie wrote:
Yes, cap pressure would be an option too. The point is no ship should be able to run around for an unlimited amount of time and be able to challenge sov.
So with cap pressure you have to make sure the Ceptor has to fit a cap booster and can't circumvent the cap pressure via rigs or med slots. You have the same mechanic then as SilentAsTheGrave and i suggest.

Sort of. I see it more that in order to be able to run around with your Entosis Link on all the time while MWDing at 5km/sec+, you'll need to make serious fitting choices. You might not require cap boosters to do it - I think that's a bit much - but requiring a couple mids and lows and / or rigs to do it would force meaningful choices. For example, if it took a couple lows with CPRs to run your Entosis Link + MWD, then you'd have a harder time making that Interceptor insta-align. If it took that plus a couple mids, you'd seriously impede their lock range. And so forth.

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

SoulLess Zealot
Khaedra's Law
#1010 - 2015-03-10 12:49:02 UTC  |  Edited by: SoulLess Zealot
its kind of amazing seeing people continuously spout reasons why dooms day fits that can just reinforce regions unimpeded. When all it takes is 1person to contest someone elses entosis link.. Why are people still trying to make this argument vailid.

Im also hearing talk of how this will turn the game into a stagnent grind and not invite pvp. My question to you is "have you ever lived in low sec...or been a part of faction warfare?" I think if you spend some time in black rise you might change your tune...
Veskrashen
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#1011 - 2015-03-10 12:55:02 UTC
SoulLess Zealot wrote:
its kind of amazing seeing people continuously spout reasons why dooms day fits that can just reinforce regions unimpeded. When all it takes is 1person to contest someone elses entosis link.. Why are people still trying to make this argument vailid.

Im also hearing talk of how this will turn the game into a stagnent grind and not invite pvp. My question to you is "have you ever lived in low sec...or been a part of faction warfare?" I think if you spend some time in black rise you might change your tune...

My esteemed colleague from the Caldari Militia gets it. Cheers to you, madame.

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

GeeShizzle MacCloud
#1012 - 2015-03-10 12:58:05 UTC
The way i see it:

  • remove the T2 Entosis Link module
  • keep the t1


if kiting/sniper fleets want to affect the military control of either a grid with a sov structure or a node in the capture mechanic then they can:

  • Use their guns
  • Use ECM


because after all, the link stops remote repping and sniper doctrines are all about alpha at range, most ECM boats tank is their range to targets anyway. Plus the non snipers cannot move out of Entosis link range else it breaks and they dont make progress securing the structure. So the problem solves itself and you get a balanced fair system.
Sarel Hendar
Avanto
Hole Control
#1013 - 2015-03-10 13:05:01 UTC
Hoshi wrote:
Sarel Hendar wrote:

ArrowArrow Big coalitions want to make it possible to bubble down entire constellations from strategic chokepoints while renting the "safe" interior. This should not be allowed.

Why not? Everyone is ranting about how you are supposed to defend your space if you want it but here you are coming and saying that one of the few possible ways you can actually do that is not allowed???

If your intention is to actually capture the space then you should have no problem destroying the bubble camp. If your intention is just to "troll" the sov then that thing that should not be allowed my the game mechanics.


You should defend your entire space, not just lock down two or three strategic systems one must pass to go into certain constellations. Also note that it's not only the entosis that bubble-immune ceptors make possible. I have some fond recollections of hunting goon afk-tars in Fade and Deklein, pursuit that was impossible before ceptor buff...

"Safe" and "nullsec" should be contradictory terms. Yes, yes, even hisec isn't "perfectly" safe, but currently far too large swathes of nullsec are much safer than hisec if you're blue to the ruling coalition.
Sougiro Seta
Stodwell Ltd.
#1014 - 2015-03-10 13:08:14 UTC
The amount of John Snows, who don't understand that risk-reward relation is absurd when you risk nothing (aka ceptor) to contest a sov/harass a whole group of people, is astonishing.

Daimus Daranius
Warcrows
Shattered Foundations
#1015 - 2015-03-10 13:17:58 UTC  |  Edited by: ISD Ezwal
*Snip* Please refrain from personal attacks. ISD Ezwal.

If cloaking modules didn't exist today and were about to be introduced in the next update then Goons would be now crying about how unkillable and uncounterable afk cloakers will be.

Of course, large nullsec blocks will lose some sov under the new system, but that's a step in the right direction, since blue donut is bad for EVE.

Amarr Victor!

Daimus Daranius
Warcrows
Shattered Foundations
#1016 - 2015-03-10 13:19:37 UTC
progodlegend wrote:
Gorski Car wrote:
There are so many things you can do to counter trollceptors I cant help but think that this is a vocal minority overreacting and creating doomsday scenarios.


You're considering this from the perspective of an individual grid or even an individual engagement. But from the perspective of someone who most run an alliance, and choose how much daily stress to put their alliance under, it's an entirely different thought process.

There are counters to everything. There are counters to Ishtars, there are counters to tengu fleet, there were even counters to carrier assigned fighters which you seemed to hate so much. Just because something has a counter doesn't mean that the risk vs. reward aspect is balanced for both the attacker and the defender.




Don't hold more systems than you can defend, problem solved.

Amarr Victor!

Dave Stark
#1017 - 2015-03-10 13:34:04 UTC
GeeShizzle MacCloud wrote:
The way i see it:

  • remove the T2 Entosis Link module
  • keep the t1


if kiting/sniper fleets want to affect the military control of either a grid with a sov structure or a node in the capture mechanic then they can:

  • Use their guns
  • Use ECM


because after all, the link stops remote repping and sniper doctrines are all about alpha at range, most ECM boats tank is their range to targets anyway. Plus the non snipers cannot move out of Entosis link range else it breaks and they dont make progress securing the structure. So the problem solves itself and you get a balanced fair system.


until you get a clash of two entities of sufficient size where the fight for control of the grid lasts longer than the capture cycle and therefore the sniper fleet loses by default because the fight lasts longer than the capture cycle and they have no way of halting the capture cycle.
Lucretia DeWinter
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#1018 - 2015-03-10 14:06:41 UTC  |  Edited by: Lucretia DeWinter
SOV laser shares similar mechanic to Cynosural Field Generator?

Control the gird - cos your "F1 for SOV" ships ain't moving.
GeeShizzle MacCloud
#1019 - 2015-03-10 14:39:12 UTC
Dave Stark wrote:
GeeShizzle MacCloud wrote:
The way i see it:

  • remove the T2 Entosis Link module
  • keep the t1


if kiting/sniper fleets want to affect the military control of either a grid with a sov structure or a node in the capture mechanic then they can:

  • Use their guns
  • Use ECM


because after all, the link stops remote repping and sniper doctrines are all about alpha at range, most ECM boats tank is their range to targets anyway. Plus the non snipers cannot move out of Entosis link range else it breaks and they dont make progress securing the structure. So the problem solves itself and you get a balanced fair system.


until you get a clash of two entities of sufficient size where the fight for control of the grid lasts longer than the capture cycle and therefore the sniper fleet loses by default because the fight lasts longer than the capture cycle and they have no way of halting the capture cycle.


theres plenty of methods that will break and hinder the sov securing of a stationary fleet close to the sov structure or command node, but if the kiting sniper fleet has not thought beyond, get on grid and run away shooting stuff that approaches then yes, they shouldnt be considered having effective military control over the grid because by definition they're entire playstyle is in being evasive.

evasion is not the tool of the occupying or controlling force. it is the tool of a lesser guerilla-style occupied or harassment force.
Dave Stark
#1020 - 2015-03-10 14:45:03 UTC
GeeShizzle MacCloud wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:
GeeShizzle MacCloud wrote:
The way i see it:

  • remove the T2 Entosis Link module
  • keep the t1


if kiting/sniper fleets want to affect the military control of either a grid with a sov structure or a node in the capture mechanic then they can:

  • Use their guns
  • Use ECM


because after all, the link stops remote repping and sniper doctrines are all about alpha at range, most ECM boats tank is their range to targets anyway. Plus the non snipers cannot move out of Entosis link range else it breaks and they dont make progress securing the structure. So the problem solves itself and you get a balanced fair system.


until you get a clash of two entities of sufficient size where the fight for control of the grid lasts longer than the capture cycle and therefore the sniper fleet loses by default because the fight lasts longer than the capture cycle and they have no way of halting the capture cycle.


theres plenty of methods that will break and hinder the sov securing of a stationary fleet close to the sov structure or command node, but if the kiting sniper fleet has not thought beyond, get on grid and run away shooting stuff that approaches then yes, they shouldnt be considered having effective military control over the grid because by definition they're entire playstyle is in being evasive.

evasion is not the tool of the occupying or controlling force. it is the tool of a lesser guerilla-style occupied or harassment force.


no, they're simply playing to the advantage of their hull and weapon bonuses. if those bonuses put you outside the range to capture a node because you have to be within 25km, that just means the system is flawed.

they're not evading anything, they're sitting there fighting - just out of range of the objective because you've deemed that the range to the objective should be 25km or less. the only reason they'll lose the contest is because they decided not to try and brawl with 1400s, or something.

the solution, would be that you can stop a capture from >25km, but you can't initiate one. that stops sniper fleets losing by default in sufficiently large engagements due to an inability to prevent a capture, but will stop them just sitting 250km away going "nar nar na nar nar you can't catch me".