These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Alavaria Fera
Imperial Shipment
#1081 - 2015-03-10 21:13:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Alavaria Fera
Amyclas Amatin wrote:
What the political meta needs to counter this change in mechanics... is a real blue donut to keep the smaller groups out.

Why do you think the dev blog is called "politics by other means". CCP intends to use these mechanics (other means) to enforce a change in politics.

Besides, with the likes of a coalition that exists to destroy us, and massdeath's commitment to destroy us, the only way you'll see a real blue donut is when we die and nadot is the only one left.

Triggered by: Wars of Sovless Agression, Bending the Knee, Twisting the Knife, Eating Sov Wheaties, Bombless Bombers, Fizzlesov, Interceptor Fleets, Running Away, GhostTime Vuln, Renters, Bombs, Bubbles ?

Amyclas Amatin
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#1082 - 2015-03-10 21:14:01 UTC
Alavaria Fera wrote:
Amyclas Amatin wrote:
What the political meta needs to counter this change in mechanics... is a real blue donut to keep the smaller groups out.

Why do you think the dev blog is called "politics by other means"

CCP intends to use these mechanics (other means) to enforce a change in politics.


One up CCP - now the coalitions can't be bothered to fight each other. Mordus Angels equivalents are keeping us busy playing whack-a-mole in space.

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?"

ISD Ezwal
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
#1083 - 2015-03-10 21:14:37 UTC  |  Edited by: ISD Ezwal
Carniflex wrote:
They don't show netflix legally outside of US :/
Yes, they do.
Alavaria Fera wrote:
Though the poor chaps that have to clean the thread... shrug
Thank you for your consideration.
GeeShizzle MacCloud wrote:
i honestly think the ISD guys should get a raise as of late.
or at least a lot of free beers from players at fanfest for all their work clearing out all the dreck from these threads.
Untill next week then! I'm looking forward to those beers...Big smile


That said, I have removed some rule breaking posts and those quoting them. As always I let some edge cases stay.
Please people, keep it on topic and above all civil!

The Rules:
4. Personal attacks are prohibited.

Commonly known as flaming, personal attacks are posts that are designed to personally berate or insult another forum user. Posts of this nature are not beneficial to the community spirit that CCP promote and as such they will not be tolerated.


5. Trolling is prohibited.

Trolling is a defined as a post that is deliberately designed for the purpose of angering and insulting other players in an attempt to incite retaliation or an emotional response. Posts of this nature are disruptive, often abusive and do not contribute to the sense of community that CCP promote.


27. Off-topic posting is prohibited.

Off-topic posting is permitted within reason, as sometimes a single comment may color or lighten the tone of discussion. However, excessive posting of off-topic remarks in an attempt to derail a thread may result in the thread being locked, or a forum warning being issued to the off-topic poster.


32. Rumor mongering is prohibited.

Rumor threads and posts which are based off no actual solid information and are designed to either troll or annoy other users will be locked and removed. These kinds of threads and posts are detrimental to the well being and spirit of the EVE Online Community, and can create undue panic among forum users, as well as adding to the workload of our moderators.





Thread reopened.

ISD Ezwal Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)

Borachon
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#1084 - 2015-03-10 22:45:39 UTC  |  Edited by: Borachon
As many have said, the main concern with being able to fit a long-range T2 link as currently envisioned on an interceptor is that the attacker risks very little while the defender risks a lot. Let's try and make this concrete.

Let's examine your hypothetical small nullsec alliance, since that's what we want more of. Someone (who ever could that be?) decides to troll it with interceptors to create timers that they can later send their members to contest for "content".

Some basic assumptions:

  • The attacker focuses on pinging ihubs, since they're expensive and they have warning from dscan when people get close.
  • Each ihub has a pirate detection array 3 and an ore detection array 3 in it, since you want a good military and industrial index to protect your sov and have time to respond to pings. The ihub and mods cost 650m (400m+150m+100m) ISK.
  • It costs you 250m isk for each of the two jump freighter trips to transport the upgrades out (250m isk is how much a Black Frog JF run from Jita to X-70 costs), and 350m isk (speculating) for the freighter trip for the ihub itself. So, 1.5b isk in total for your ihub.
  • Each failed attempt to ping a structure costs the attackers some amount due to the risk of losing his ship. At the high end of risk, Carniflex has speculated this could be up to 25m (100m/4) isk on average; I'd guess it's closer to 5m isk on average because dscan exists and sometimes it's just a Celestis or Maulus using ECM on you. We'll stick with Carniflex's 25m ISK number for now, however.
  • Your small alliance responds well to sov pings, but some you're going to miss. This could be because they're at the end of your primetime, or there are too many at once for you to cover, or you're out with friends, or whatever. Let's say 95% of the time (19/20) you respond to a sov ping and either chase off or kill the attacker.
  • An ihub timer is very dangerous because of how expensive ihubs are; large groups will show up if they happen, so you expect to win about half of them and lose about half of them.

In 19 out of 20 pings, you respond and the attacker has a chance of losing his interceptor, costing him 25m*19=475m every 20 pings. One out of every 20 pings you fail to respond and have a 50% chance of losing your 1.5b ISK ihub, costing you 750m ISK on average. Even using numbers that I think are unrealistic in terms of risk to the attacker, it is easily worth an attacker's time. To break even using Carniflex's numbers, you'd have to respond to almost 97% of all ihub pings. If the average cost of an ihub ping in an interceptor is closer to 10m, you'd have to respond to almost 99% of all ihub pings. If it's closer to 5m, you can miss only 1 sov ping out of 150.

This is the basic problem - the combination of expensive sov structures and entosis link fits that results in low risk per ping. If something like that goes live, even accepting MOA's (imo wrong) numbers, trollceptors would be toxic to sov nullsec. Ihubs would die and go (rationally) unreplaced, and most of the things which make sov nullsec actually livable (ratting, mining, exploring, etc.) would end. And with it, all the targets in sov 0.0 for alliances like MOA would go away, too.

There are lots of ways to fix this (make ihubs/upgrades smaller and cheaper, S/M/L links, nerfing base interceptor agility, link penalties to sig bloom or agility or max speed, etc.), and I have my perferences (which I stated early on). It's imperative, however, that we at least recognize the problem and work to find the best changes to entosis links fits to avoid it.
GeeShizzle MacCloud
#1085 - 2015-03-10 22:47:30 UTC  |  Edited by: GeeShizzle MacCloud
FYI u should all use the downtime when ISD's clear threads to make your observations clear to CCP fozzie by tweeting your ideas / observations and criticisms to him on twitter as it seems he is more likely to respond there then he is on an actual thread he created in order to entertain himself playing novelty psychiatrist in a personal sociopathic experiment.

You should all append your tweet with @CCP_Fozzie
Erasmus Grant
Un4seen Development
Sev3rance
#1086 - 2015-03-10 23:00:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Erasmus Grant
What is really unfair is how these Sov powers can control the best moons far from their sov systems. So on top of renting systems they also use their numbers and power to keep moons from the little guys.
Erasmus Grant
Un4seen Development
Sev3rance
#1087 - 2015-03-10 23:04:44 UTC
GeeShizzle MacCloud wrote:
FYI u should all use the downtime when ISD's clear threads to make your observations clear to CCP fozzie by tweeting your ideas / observations and criticisms to him on twitter as it seems he is more likely to respond there then he is on an actual thread he created in order to entertain himself playing novelty psychiatrist in a personal sociopathic experiment.

You should all append your tweet with @CCP_Fozzie


Why are you going after him if he just doing what he is told to do?
Primary This Rifter
Mutual Fund of the Something
#1088 - 2015-03-10 23:21:08 UTC
Zazad Antollare wrote:
Ok im going to give a last try to the deployable/drone sov laser

The idea is that in order to make the link have the minimum effect on ships and tactics it should be detached from the ship carrying it. This will make that no matter what doctrine is being used the sov laser is the same for everyone, same hp and same sig/speed tank (if applicable)
For the sake of it call it entosis hacking module

Base attributes
1 per ship (low volume)
MTU level hp or whatever the devs fell is reasonable
Abandoning grid disconnects the module (possible not being able to scoop again)
Control ship has to be within 250k (or grid range)
Make it that you can only resupply in the same way you can resupply a ship (station, Pos, carrier,…)
If high slot is needed for any reason make it that it can be used with a launcher if not make it launch form cargo hold
Could be invulnerable while 2 or more links are active so that only when you truly control the grid be either killing the enemy ship with an active module or make them run away you can make the timer advance and not by only killing the module

Requirements:
1-As much as possible, the Entosis Link capture progress should reflect which group has effective military control of the grid. – Check

Only if you kill the enemy or if they leave you can advance the timer

2-The optimal strategy for fighting over a location with the Entosis Link should be to gain effective control of the grid. - Check

Same as above

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

Bring whatever you want, you win the fight you make the timer go forward

4- The restrictions and penalties on the Entosis Link should be as simple and understandable as possible. – Semi-Check

Some of the penalties that the current iteration of the link has won’t be transferable to this system but new ones can be added.

Some people might want KB to show their friends and even though a KB for the link can be generated people still want to kill ships that is the thing that this system might lack. Still I believe is better than a ship link since this way if people really want the sov they have to stay one grid and win the fight (you only have one chance per ship after deploying) or if people only want to troll they can only troll once until resupply (same resupply mechanics as ships).

I feel like this is the best solution.
GeeShizzle MacCloud
#1089 - 2015-03-10 23:27:17 UTC  |  Edited by: GeeShizzle MacCloud
Erasmus Grant wrote:
GeeShizzle MacCloud wrote:
FYI u should all use the downtime when ISD's clear threads to make your observations clear to CCP fozzie by tweeting your ideas / observations and criticisms to him on twitter as it seems he is more likely to respond there then he is on an actual thread he created in order to entertain himself playing novelty psychiatrist in a personal sociopathic experiment.

You should all append your tweet with @CCP_Fozzie


Why are you going after him if he just doing what he is told to do?


Because firstly this breakout thread should have appeared over 4 days earlier than it should, secondly CCP fozzie said this thread should have been a more targeted discussion on the Entosis module and it could have been if he had given us a good basis to start the conversation on balancing such a module but we barely know the mechanics of how it should function based off of the design document CCP Fozzie most likely has in his possession.

A huuuge proportion of this thread is total conjecture and then argumentative assumptions after argumentative assumptions built upon that.
Massive amounts of energy, time, commitment and willpower has been leveraged by the player base to argue over this and even after multiple requests for CCP Fozzie to clarify the initial proposal has been made... absolutely nothing.

Yet ISD's have to slog over these threads deleting tolling, inflammatory posts and wild retorts built around complete hypothetical assumptions. all because CCP Fozzie cannot spend 15 more minutes clarifying some aspects of the module from an initial design idea. I mean this has been something CCP has been researching and putting ideas together for near on half a decade, discussing it with multiple CSM delegations and pooling quite possibly millions of man hours of player feedback on throughout the years.

Yet we get a targeted post that that clarifies practically nothing more than we received in the inital dev blog, only a promise that if stuff seems like it may become too powerful or stray too far for core principles well use our toolkit to reel it back in. Well holy f**k batman, i thought u were gonna use a seance to change the code in the game. You guys are Computer entertainment developers after all right?
afkalt
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#1090 - 2015-03-10 23:46:15 UTC  |  Edited by: afkalt
Borachon wrote:
50% chance of losing your 1.5b ISK ihub


That's a very off assumption - in moderately upgraded system, the deck is stacked hard in the defenders favor.


>>If the Sovereignty structure exiting its reinforcement period has an owner, then occupancy defense bonuses apply to all of the Command Nodes for that structure’s event

In other words, defenders always cap in 10 minutes, attackers in 10-40. Multiply that by the 10 nodes required and even a 5 minute difference starts adding up fast.

Unless you blob them - but blobbing to take sov is hardly new and has no bearing on these debates.
Alavaria Fera
Imperial Shipment
#1091 - 2015-03-10 23:52:08 UTC
Stacking more and more required entosis time. Ah, this new version of structure shooting lasering sounds great.

Triggered by: Wars of Sovless Agression, Bending the Knee, Twisting the Knife, Eating Sov Wheaties, Bombless Bombers, Fizzlesov, Interceptor Fleets, Running Away, GhostTime Vuln, Renters, Bombs, Bubbles ?

Syn Shi
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#1092 - 2015-03-10 23:53:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Syn Shi
Amyclas Amatin wrote:
Wishful thinking. If Entosis links flip/destroy structures, they will be the center of our doctrines. We play to win.

Quote:

The optimal strategy for fighting over a location with the Entosis Link should be to gain effective control of the grid.

This is the other side of the coin. In practice it means that we should discourage mechanics that lead to indefinite stalemates over a structure or command node. This is the reason for the "no remote reps" condition on active Links. This is also the goal that trollceptors would contradict if they were to become dominant.



Put it this way. If sending 500 suicide alts to Entosis something is a viable strategy, we will do it.



Everyone already knows that goons answer to anything is just blob the hell out of it. Its the only way they can win.

Grr goons.........F1 4evah.


Make it so only command ships can use the link....and it has to be the FC.
Borachon
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#1093 - 2015-03-10 23:55:39 UTC  |  Edited by: Borachon
afkalt wrote:

Unless you blob them - but blobbing to take sov... has no bearing on these debates.


My point is that big groups will show up exactly because ihubs are , valuable, hard to replace, and the event is scheduled. We've all seen how PL has farmed BRAVE at timers, we know how many supers NC. has to throw around, and we all know exactly who Fozzie is referring to when he talks about "weaponinzing boredom".

Even assuming you're right though, if you contested 95% of ihub pings:

  • If it costs the attacker 25m per ihub ping (riiiight...), you'd have to win 75% of ihub reinforces to break even
  • If it costs the attacker 10m per ihub ping, you'd have to win almost 90% of ihub reinforces to break even
  • If it costs the attacker 5m per ihub ping, you'd have to win 94% of ihub reinforces to break even


Having to win 95% of ihub pings and 95% of ihub reinforcements to break even is a pretty heavy burden.
Dras Malar
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#1094 - 2015-03-11 00:22:27 UTC
These calculations about isk expenditures on both sides are assuming that the attacker is trying to win the isk war and isn't just trying to annoy you to death. Even if it costs more in interceptors than your ihub is worth it could still be worth it to take your sov just to burn you out in the long war.

Honestly I do not understand why we are even talking about the entosis link. It's very discouraging that CCP gets these wild ideas and it doesn't really matter what we say about them, we just have to deal with the fallout. I would love it if we could just scrap this idea about this gimmicky module and go back to coming up with a more streamlined sov system based on existing mechanics.
Borachon
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#1095 - 2015-03-11 00:26:52 UTC
Dras Malar wrote:
These calculations about isk expenditures on both sides are assuming that the attacker is trying to win the isk war and isn't just trying to annoy you to death. Even if it costs more in interceptors than your ihub is worth it could still be worth it to take your sov just to burn you out in the long war.


In big sov wars, I absolutely agree, because morale and burnout are what counts in the long run. However, the basic economics of it are so bad, that you'd never even get to the long run unless you, for example, made ihubs and their upgrades a lot cheaper and easier to install.
Alavaria Fera
Imperial Shipment
#1096 - 2015-03-11 00:35:26 UTC
Borachon wrote:
Dras Malar wrote:
These calculations about isk expenditures on both sides are assuming that the attacker is trying to win the isk war and isn't just trying to annoy you to death. Even if it costs more in interceptors than your ihub is worth it could still be worth it to take your sov just to burn you out in the long war.

In big sov wars, I absolutely agree, because morale and burnout are what counts in the long run. However, the basic economics of it are so bad, that you'd never even get to the long run unless you, for example, made ihubs and their upgrades a lot cheaper and easier to install.

Well basically the isk cost as well as the transport cost (but remember the 0.0 vision of freighter convoys) are both relevant.

It's still likely that eventually you'd just see unihubbed areas, and then the ratting etc is so bad no one lives there, making it even less worthwhile to bother defending or ihubbing it.


So thus, the farm burns down and the fields get overgrown with spaceweeds (not the type you smoke).

Triggered by: Wars of Sovless Agression, Bending the Knee, Twisting the Knife, Eating Sov Wheaties, Bombless Bombers, Fizzlesov, Interceptor Fleets, Running Away, GhostTime Vuln, Renters, Bombs, Bubbles ?

Amyclas Amatin
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#1097 - 2015-03-11 00:42:22 UTC
Alavaria Fera wrote:
Borachon wrote:
Dras Malar wrote:
These calculations about isk expenditures on both sides are assuming that the attacker is trying to win the isk war and isn't just trying to annoy you to death. Even if it costs more in interceptors than your ihub is worth it could still be worth it to take your sov just to burn you out in the long war.

In big sov wars, I absolutely agree, because morale and burnout are what counts in the long run. However, the basic economics of it are so bad, that you'd never even get to the long run unless you, for example, made ihubs and their upgrades a lot cheaper and easier to install.

Well basically the isk cost as well as the transport cost (but remember the 0.0 vision of freighter convoys) are both relevant.

It's still likely that eventually you'd just see unihubbed areas, and then the ratting etc is so bad no one lives there, making it even less worthwhile to bother defending or ihubbing it.


So thus, the farm burns down and the fields get overgrown with spaceweeds (not the type you smoke).


Who cares about your bliddy farm when we can PVE in safety in highsec while roaming you in ceptors.

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?"

Freddy Wong
Infinity Engine
#1098 - 2015-03-11 01:36:27 UTC
Since it does seem that people will be bent on constantly warping from sov structure to sov structure (and anticipating the addition of new anchorable system structures), would allowing an iHub or a station to count as the TCU be unreasonable in FozzieSov? The thought here is once a TCU is down the system is claimed as per normal, but adding an iHub AND a station would remove the need for a TCU, with ownership of the system dependent on who own both the iHub AND the station. Different owners would mean the system was unclaimed. This would mean the most sov structures one would have to defend in a system would be 2.

The point here is to make defending sov slightly easier and make upgraded systems easier to defend. I believe with slightly less things to defend small stake holders in 0.0 would be able to defend a bit easier and the larger alliances would still be spread thin, though the empires would be slightly larger. This may encourage every system to have a station, but they will be destructible soon anyway right? Cool
SilentAsTheGrave
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#1099 - 2015-03-11 01:57:45 UTC
Erasmus Grant wrote:
What is really unfair is how these Sov powers can control the best moons far from their sov systems. So on top of renting systems they also use their numbers and power to keep moons from the little guys.

Shhhhh.... don't tell any....


Oh who am I kidding! Please share this with EVERYONE! Cool
Alavaria Fera
Imperial Shipment
#1100 - 2015-03-11 02:08:28 UTC
SilentAsTheGrave wrote:
Erasmus Grant wrote:
What is really unfair is how these Sov powers can control the best moons far from their sov systems. So on top of renting systems they also use their numbers and power to keep moons from the little guys.

Shhhhh.... don't tell any....


Oh who am I kidding! Please share this with EVERYONE! Cool

But Brave is already fighting PL and ...

are you taking their moons or just being farmed as "content" for them?

Triggered by: Wars of Sovless Agression, Bending the Knee, Twisting the Knife, Eating Sov Wheaties, Bombless Bombers, Fizzlesov, Interceptor Fleets, Running Away, GhostTime Vuln, Renters, Bombs, Bubbles ?