These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Previous Topic Next Topic
Burl en Daire
M.O.M.S. Corp
#1121 - 2015-03-11 06:50:35 UTC
Wanda Fayne wrote:
Burl en Daire wrote:
Wanda Fayne wrote:


I like the fuel idea, but it will die with the other good ideas...

Now lets cut to the chase:

As a revolutionary idea, lets put the meat on the table and require the entosis link to have a PLEX in the cargohold to activate.
Does not consume it, just requires it to be in the ship for the link to work.

1. No trolling without substantial risk
2. Any ship in the game can carry one
3. Requires no additional modifications to the existing proposals.

I dare anyone to defeat this idea, as it nails the trolling argument coffin closed.




I love the idea but the cost barrier is a bit steep.

If I was in a smaller gang and wanted to provoke a fight in null using an Elink it would take 700m just to do it, not counting hulls, fits or implants. I would vote it in but I think the entry barrier is too high for this particular mechanic. Also, it would allow only the super rich to troll any group at any time because as many have said, interceptors can't be caught. Take the recent minilove theft, 250B gone and it's no big deal, that is like 350 PLEX that could go to trolling and not many other organizations could do that.


True, but the defender will also be sporting one, now isn't that raising your interest already?
Edit: Are you there to provoke a fight, or seriously contend for sov?



I am looking for the elusive GF by goading out people to protect their assets. WH, LS and some HS players may want to get a fight and this mechanic allows that, not all Elinks will be trolls or eviction notices, some will be people wanting quick fights so they can get some kills and go home.

Yesterday's weirdness is tomorrow's reason why. Hunter S. Thompson
Burl en Daire
M.O.M.S. Corp
#1122 - 2015-03-11 06:56:58 UTC
Borachon wrote:
Burl en Daire wrote:

What do you think the optimal number of IHubs would be for a system and/or what would you base that number off of?
What would be an appropriate size (m3) and cost?


Good question, and I'm not sure about the answer. It also starts to get away from the specifics of the entosis link fits, so I'm not sure it's strictly on-topic for this thread.

To be brief, though: PGL's suggestion was for an ihub and each upgrade to fit in an industrial, be buildable locally (they're currently sourced from NPCs in CONCORD stations), and have them each cost a few tens of millions of isk. That's the right area, though I might make them slightly more expensive so that they keep getting targetted, perhaps 150-200m isk total for a modestly upgraded (L3) ihub. At that level, the attacker and defender's risks are more commensurate, it's easy enough for an alliance moving to nullsec to get reasonable economic benefits quickly, but if it's occasionally killed it's not catastrophic.

To keep this on topic, with reasonably upgraded ihubs in the 150m isk range, the purely economic annoyance of long range entosis links on interceptors doesn't bother me as much. The morale and general harassment costs do matter, and are easy for people not used to sov warfare to underestimate, but are also harder to quantify. That's why I'd still prefer S/M/L/XL size entosis modules with ranges and fitting costs in line with appropriately-sized high-slot weapons (say s/m/l/xl beam lasers).



I would prefer to see different sized Elinks with each size up having a lower cycle time. Maybe start at minutes on s down to one minute on x large. Ranges are odd to me on these things but I would like to see them scale with size like you say. Smaller ships should have a harder time, the risk should be appropriate to amount of harassment that can be dealt out.

Yesterday's weirdness is tomorrow's reason why. Hunter S. Thompson
Wanda Fayne
#1123 - 2015-03-11 07:50:55 UTC
Burl en Daire wrote:
Wanda Fayne wrote:
Burl en Daire wrote:
Wanda Fayne wrote:


I like the fuel idea, but it will die with the other good ideas...

Now lets cut to the chase:

As a revolutionary idea, lets put the meat on the table and require the entosis link to have a PLEX in the cargohold to activate.
Does not consume it, just requires it to be in the ship for the link to work.

1. No trolling without substantial risk
2. Any ship in the game can carry one
3. Requires no additional modifications to the existing proposals.

I dare anyone to defeat this idea, as it nails the trolling argument coffin closed.




I love the idea but the cost barrier is a bit steep.

If I was in a smaller gang and wanted to provoke a fight in null using an Elink it would take 700m just to do it, not counting hulls, fits or implants. I would vote it in but I think the entry barrier is too high for this particular mechanic. Also, it would allow only the super rich to troll any group at any time because as many have said, interceptors can't be caught. Take the recent minilove theft, 250B gone and it's no big deal, that is like 350 PLEX that could go to trolling and not many other organizations could do that.


True, but the defender will also be sporting one, now isn't that raising your interest already?
Edit: Are you there to provoke a fight, or seriously contend for sov?



I am looking for the elusive GF by goading out people to protect their assets. WH, LS and some HS players may want to get a fight and this mechanic allows that, not all Elinks will be trolls or eviction notices, some will be people wanting quick fights so they can get some kills and go home.


Fair enough. But I don't believe the E.L. was intended this way, which is why I put forward a steeper "Ante-Up" approach.
It is intended as a tool of war, and while easily implemented should have a more serious intent in practice.

"your comments just confirms this whole idea is totally pathetic" -Lan Wang-

  • - "hub humping station gamey neutral logi warspam wankery" -Ralph King-Griffin-
Carniflex
StarHunt
Mordus Angels
#1124 - 2015-03-11 08:37:11 UTC
Well we are getting distracted with ISBoxer. I do not have citations for that - just a educated guess based on my observations in-game. Overall the change did not affect me directly so I'm not interested enough in that to get into a pissing contest on that subject.

What I am interested about is the new sov changes. My overall impression is positive although I do believe this idea will need some more polish before implementation - which it is clearly scheduled to get considering it's supposed to hit the server in June.

Leaving aside a trollceptor that is not an issue as far as I can see I think one thing that IS an issue with the new sov system is maximum supported population density by a given 0.0 system. This is issue because if an alliance needs or wants to form as tight ball as possible to reduce its space footprint to minimum there is a minimum number of systems it needs to take to "fit". This aspect is unique to sov null and WH's as hi sec, low sec and NPC null have agents which can support, in theory, as high population densities as server can handle.

One of the solutions for that (suggested also previously by several people in various places over the years) is allowing some kind of agents in sov null systems. How exactly is not that important but I see several possibilities
- agent in space (like COSMOS agents) - could be killed, would "respawn" somewhere and fly back to its target system after a bit.
- station upgrade or ability to hire it in station.
- some kind of structure to interact with
- some kind of ihub upgrade

Granted this kind of would remove the resource scarcity at grunt level.

Here, sanity... niiiice sanity, come to daddy... okay, that's a good sanity... THWONK! GOT the bastard.
Kagura Nikon
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#1125 - 2015-03-11 10:28:27 UTC
Please please. Some people here need to go back and READ THE ORIGINAL DEV BLOG!

More than half clearly did not read it completely and do not understand how the mechanics will work!

The absolute majority for example is ignoring the fact that entosis links can be cancelled by opposing entosis links!!!

That ALONE already cancels the troll ceptor issue!



Too many doomsayers that propose scenrios that depend on the enemy doing NOTHING except rolling over and dieing! This system is designed EXACLTY to make people FORCED to react! And reaction is EASY!!!

It is easy to cancel a troll ceptor effect.. forcing the ceptors side to move to other place or ESCALATE. If escalation happens then the mechanics are SUCCESSFUL!

"If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#1126 - 2015-03-11 10:39:36 UTC
Kagura Nikon wrote:

That ALONE already cancels the troll ceptor issue!


And brings up the "it's not promoting conflict" issue.

It's just two guys sitting on opposite sides of a button across from each other, waiting for the other guy to get bored and leave.

So long as the Entosis modules can be fitted on frigates, the optimal strategy will be to not fight, just **** around until the other guy dies of boredom.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
Dave stark
#1127 - 2015-03-11 10:46:13 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Kagura Nikon wrote:

That ALONE already cancels the troll ceptor issue!


And brings up the "it's not promoting conflict" issue.

It's just two guys sitting on opposite sides of a button across from each other, waiting for the other guy to get bored and leave.

So long as the Entosis modules can be fitted on frigates, the optimal strategy will be to not fight, just **** around until the other guy dies of boredom.


weaponised boredom, as pointed out in the devblog, is something they want to move away from.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#1128 - 2015-03-11 10:54:41 UTC
Dave Stark wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Kagura Nikon wrote:

That ALONE already cancels the troll ceptor issue!


And brings up the "it's not promoting conflict" issue.

It's just two guys sitting on opposite sides of a button across from each other, waiting for the other guy to get bored and leave.

So long as the Entosis modules can be fitted on frigates, the optimal strategy will be to not fight, just **** around until the other guy dies of boredom.


weaponised boredom, as pointed out in the devblog, is something they want to move away from.


Move away from, highly incentivize, same basic principle.

The point is that something is being done about/with weaponized boredom.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
knobber Jobbler
State War Academy
Caldari State
#1129 - 2015-03-11 11:27:02 UTC
Dave Stark wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Kagura Nikon wrote:

That ALONE already cancels the troll ceptor issue!


And brings up the "it's not promoting conflict" issue.

It's just two guys sitting on opposite sides of a button across from each other, waiting for the other guy to get bored and leave.

So long as the Entosis modules can be fitted on frigates, the optimal strategy will be to not fight, just **** around until the other guy dies of boredom.


weaponised boredom, as pointed out in the devblog, is something they want to move away from.


Rise said he wanted to nerf Ishtars and look how that turned out. Practically no difference. Saying and doing is entirely unrelated. In this instance they've come up with an idea which on paper looks fine but in reality will be precisely which they are keen to avoid. Instead of taking this feedback and applying it, they along with various other people - notably those who don't, won't or can't get into nullsec - are defending it.
Veskrashen
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#1130 - 2015-03-11 11:27:21 UTC
Carniflex wrote:
Leaving aside a trollceptor that is not an issue as far as I can see I think one thing that IS an issue with the new sov system is maximum supported population density by a given 0.0 system. This is issue because if an alliance needs or wants to form as tight ball as possible to reduce its space footprint to minimum there is a minimum number of systems it needs to take to "fit". This aspect is unique to sov null and WH's as hi sec, low sec and NPC null have agents which can support, in theory, as high population densities as server can handle.

One of the solutions for that (suggested also previously by several people in various places over the years) is allowing some kind of agents in sov null systems. How exactly is not that important but I see several possibilities
- agent in space (like COSMOS agents) - could be killed, would "respawn" somewhere and fly back to its target system after a bit.
- station upgrade or ability to hire it in station.
- some kind of structure to interact with
- some kind of ihub upgrade

Granted this kind of would remove the resource scarcity at grunt level.

Aside from the fact that this isn't the right thread for this part of the discussion - this is Entosis Link module balance only - it's been strongly hinted that the income in sov space will be looked at in Sov 3.0 (see here for example).

I like the idea of agents in nullsec, but they need to be balanced where you can just have the entire CFC balled up in Deklein behind bubble walls of death happily running L5s over and over again. There needs to be limits to how they're spawned, maintained, and run.

My personal idea is that either they're agents in space, or any station with agents is freeported.

We Gallente have a saying: "CCP created the Gallente Militia to train the Fighters..."
Aralyn Cormallen
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#1131 - 2015-03-11 11:28:50 UTC
Veskrashen wrote:
2. The problem that Gewns et al have with Trollceptors is that they can avoid bubblecamps with instalockers. This is, in fact, by design - the entire idea of Interceptors is to create a class of high speed ships that can go ANYWHERE with ease.


When was the ship class called Escapers? Or Avoiders? They are Interceptors, their reason to be is to Intercept. And they do that well, their bubble-immunity allows them to crash through attempts to delay a pursuit and intercept a fleeing foe. Unfortunatly, they are too good at it, and instead became the fleeing foe.

Quote:
Giving them the ability to mount a Sovlaser just means those ships can have an impact on sov - which is a very, very good thing and a necessary thing from a design standpoint. Removing their ability to mount / use a sovlaser means that nullblocs can simply hellbubblecamp the chokepoints and remove all threats to their sov aside from wormholers (who are generally insane and uninterested in sov per se).


Since when is actively defending your sov not supposed to be enough? I'm sorry that gate camps have instilled ptsd in you related to bubbles, but they are a feature of nullsec. The very essence of nullsec should be setting up a defence, controlling the terrain to help the defenders repel invaders, and I'm sorry, but that means lone vandals might have to lose a ship every once in a while. Aww. Castles have walls, they do not require soldiers stationed on the roof of every hut. We let you through the walls, and you run amok, we deserve to be scampering to put out the fires. But we man the walls with a solid defence, why shouldn't you have to make the slightest effort to actually breach that defence? And seriously, how big an effort do you really need to exert? Just, nut up, bust the camp and get your guys in; you don't even need to get a whole fleet in, just send a suicide team to engage the camp while you get a cyno frig in and blops or bridge as many entosis-ships as you like in to the interior.

Quote:
I look forward to the trollposts of nullbears unable to adapt. Cheers!

"Every poster who disagrees with me is a troll", really? Sorry, put put some effort in. The defenders are going to have to, the attackers should to.
ISD Ezwal
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
ISD Alliance
#1132 - 2015-03-11 11:32:10 UTC
I have removed some rule breaking posts and those quoting them. As always I let some edge cases stay.

The Rules:
3. Ranting is prohibited.

A rant is a post that is often filled with angry and counter productive comments. A free exchange of ideas is essential to building a strong sense of community and is helpful in development of the game and community. Rants are disruptive, and incite flaming and trolling. Please post your thoughts in a concise and clear manner while avoiding going off on rambling tangents.

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.

ISD Ezwal Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)
Primary This Rifter
Mutual Fund of the Something
#1133 - 2015-03-11 11:37:33 UTC
Primary This Rifter wrote:
Nolak Ataru wrote:
Mike Azariah wrote:
Most useless and the most useful here, not a wide field of competition. How do you imagine 'testing' the sov structure on Sisi? Who would have a vested interest in trying it out? Defending it?
As to what was said behind closed doors in my official capacity? There is a reason the doors are closed. Or do you mean to say you wish to compare my take to that which your OWN CSM reps have told you? What's that? They haven't told you squat? Well, I am suuuure they know what is best for you, just the same.
I LIKE that it fits on an interceptor for exactly the same reasons you do not. That means there are demands of occupancy in depth, not just on choke points and border regions. That means that if you cannot find people to do said occupancy it will be trivial for you to lose that space.
On the other hand I do not like the concept of people not bothering with territorial control hubs because they are too easily blown up. The math one person put up was well presented and worth looking at . . . in depth. But rather than using this as a reason to cut the interceptor fits I take it as a reason to increase reasons to have sov in local space and maybe push for a decrease in the cost of the TCUs.
Volume and repetition only goes so far. I much prefer one good post to 50 bad ones. It is why I wade through this and other forums, I am panning for gold in a whole lot of mud/sand.


Mike, that's horsepucky and you bloody know it. Look at the Fighter assist thread and you'll see. 57 (pruned) pages of sensible changes and people telling CCP "No, but if you do XYZ it'll have a similar effect" and a seriously juicy Revenant killmail, and not ONE can give me a good argument as to why we should remove fighter assist instead of adding a bubble around a POS where you can't assign fighters and making fighters scrammable, and all CCP Fozzie can say is "Thanks for posting, but we're going to ignore what we said about taking your feedback into account and go ahead with this anyways". People are getting tired of CCP saying one thing and doing another. I've still yet to hear from CCP Falcon about that sit down that we were promised that he recently broke his word on, so after the fighter thread, and given this ****-poor idea, I'm under the distinct impression that if I were to stack CCP's word against that of a Jita local scammer, I'd have better odds on getting the scammer to actually talk back or take some advice.

We wish to wonder what exactly the use of a CSM is if that CSM cannot make CCP listen to us, take what we say seriously, or even respond to what we say to begin with. I'm reminded heavily of a book I read when I was younger that talked about the difference between "listening" and "hearing", where "hearing" is when person A says he wants to join the Army, and person B starts going on about his brother in the Army just because he heard "Army". "Listening" is when person A says he wants to join the army, and person B takes the time to discuss his decision and choice at length and in great detail to make sure it's the best choice possible. I'll leave you to guess which of the two CCP has been doing of late.

If you want to see the difference between "volume" and "repetition", look at the fighter thread. Hundreds of "grr fighters" badposting, and zero actually taking the time to even attempt to discuss why fighter assist is bad. I'm not even going to talk about the ISBoxer thread where nobody at all has given us a solid reason why ISBoxer should be banned, other than screaming "muh ISK" and "muh effort" when they are exposed to facts, logic, and reason, all the while sticking their heads in the sand and shouting "lalalala can't hear you" when their fallacies and insults are exposed.

Yeah. I'm getting real tired of CCP's ****, to be quite honest.

CCP: "We're doing X because reasons."
Players: "Why can't you do Y? It's not as heavy handed as X, it still allows interesting gameplay, and it fixes the same problem just as well. We also know you can do it, considering you've coded something very similar in the past."
CCP: "Thank you for your feedback. We're still going ahead and doing X anyway." *Doesn't address Y at all, even just to say "it won't work" without explanation*

Yeah, this leaves us a real impression that they care about our feedback. It's really only when players are overwhelmingly against a change that they really bother considering alternatives, such as when CCP was considering giving freighters rig slots.

Reposting this. It wasn't a rant, it wasn't a personal attack, and it wasn't trolling. It was deleted anyway.
Do not delete it again.
Sougiro Seta
Fusion Enterprises Ltd
Pandemic Horde
#1134 - 2015-03-11 11:39:36 UTC
Going from one pole to another is just a dumb move. "We don't want sov to be a structure grinding inferno" -> "Let's make sov attainable with frigates at zero risk, gypsy factional sovwar for everyone!"
There's a spanish proberb which says, more or less, that "on the midpoint you'll find the virtue"

It's the same problem we had with Phoebe, and the same one we're going to enjoy with the supers rebalance: an absolute lack of thinking levels and planification. Not trying to precisely solve problems but, instead, nuking whole parts of the game core because \o/


At least, CCP game designers are just making videogames. Imagine them as medics:

Patient Seta: "hey Dr. Fozzie, I've an herpes on my lip"
Dr.Fozzie: "behead him"
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#1135 - 2015-03-11 11:48:29 UTC
Primary This Rifter wrote:

Reposting this. It wasn't a rant, it wasn't a personal attack, and it wasn't trolling. It was deleted anyway.
Do not delete it again.


It was quoting something that could arguably be a rant and a personal attack, though. Perhaps re-frame it?

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
Primary This Rifter
Mutual Fund of the Something
#1136 - 2015-03-11 11:50:06 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Primary This Rifter wrote:

Reposting this. It wasn't a rant, it wasn't a personal attack, and it wasn't trolling. It was deleted anyway.
Do not delete it again.


It was quoting something that could arguably be a rant and a personal attack, though. Perhaps re-frame it?

That's not my problem. If I'm quoting a rule breaking post, but my post itself doesn't break the rules, then ISD should just snip the rule breaking post instead of deleting my post entirely. The same goes for every other post that gets deleted for this reason.
Veskrashen
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#1137 - 2015-03-11 11:56:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Veskrashen
Aralyn Cormallen wrote:
When was the ship class called Escapers? Or Avoiders? They are Interceptors, their reason to be is to Intercept. And they do that well, their bubble-immunity allows them to crash through attempts to delay a pursuit and intercept a fleeing foe. Unfortunatly, they are too good at it, and instead became the fleeing foe.

If they could be delayed by bubbles and/or unable to instawarp, they wouldn't be that good at Intercepting stuff a few jumps away, would they? But hey - glad to see the issue remains that Interceptors can avoid bubblecamps, not their speed or lock range or any of that other stuff.

Quote:
Since when is actively defending your sov not supposed to be enough? I'm sorry that gate camps have instilled ptsd in you related to bubbles, but they are a feature of nullsec. The very essence of nullsec should be setting up a defence, controlling the terrain to help the defenders repel invaders, and I'm sorry, but that means lone vandals might have to lose a ship every once in a while. Aww. Castles have walls, they do not require soldiers stationed on the roof of every hut. We let you through the walls, and you run amok, we deserve to be scampering to put out the fires. But we man the walls with a solid defence, why shouldn't you have to make the slightest effort to actually breach that defence? And seriously, how big an effort do you really need to exert? Just, nut up, bust the camp and get your guys in; you don't even need to get a whole fleet in, just send a suicide team to engage the camp while you get a cyno frig in and blops or bridge as many entosis-ships as you like in to the interior.

Yes, you should be able to actively defend your space. And you absolutely can with the new mechanic, just like in the current sov system. Even against the invincible unkillable uncounterable Trollceptor.

The fact that "actively defending your space" means being active defending your space in more places than just chokepoints doesn't change that fact.

Look, bubble the hell out of the chokepoints. It's a great idea, works well, and keeps about 90%+ of the solo threats out. It puts a nice high bar for folks to clear if they want to bring bigger ships.

What it should NOT do is give you total immunity. Having Sovlazors on Trollceptors is a very simple way of ensuring you won't be.

EDIT: One other thing - Blopsing / Bridging past a camp into the interior still allows a defender to set up additional bubblehellcamps to box them in and prevent them from running amok, forcing them to extract. The interdiction nullification on Interceptors in particular makes that incredibly difficult, which is why they need to still be able to fit sovlazors.

We note that cloaky T3s are not a problem in your eyes, nor are cloaky ships in general, or are interdiction nullified T3s. None of which are as easily able to avoid bubblecamps. Thus, the entire issue of trollceptors is that you CAN'T put up a nice high wall and keep everyone out so your folks can continue AFKtaring in peace.

I don't think that's an end goal CCP should be encouraging, personally.

We Gallente have a saying: "CCP created the Gallente Militia to train the Fighters..."
Veskrashen
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#1138 - 2015-03-11 12:01:52 UTC
Sougiro Seta wrote:
Going from one pole to another is just a dumb move. "We don't want sov to be a structure grinding inferno" -> "Let's make sov attainable with frigates at zero risk, gypsy factional sovwar for everyone!"

Frigates are incredibly fragile things that can be countered in a bazillion ways. If you do, that pilot is stuck in a pod far far from home. Man the F up already and accept that you're going to actually have to defend the space you live in, and start figuring out how to catch the little buggers.

Or, yanno, don't. I hear L4s in Osmon are really fun or something.

We Gallente have a saying: "CCP created the Gallente Militia to train the Fighters..."
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#1139 - 2015-03-11 12:01:55 UTC
Primary This Rifter wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Primary This Rifter wrote:

Reposting this. It wasn't a rant, it wasn't a personal attack, and it wasn't trolling. It was deleted anyway.
Do not delete it again.


It was quoting something that could arguably be a rant and a personal attack, though. Perhaps re-frame it?

That's not my problem. If I'm quoting a rule breaking post, but my post itself doesn't break the rules, then ISD should just snip the rule breaking post instead of deleting my post entirely. The same goes for every other post that gets deleted for this reason.


I don't disagree, but discussing forum moderation won't help. I believe you need to file a ticket if you have an issue with forum moderation. Don't know for certain, never tried it myself.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#1140 - 2015-03-11 12:01:57 UTC
Veskrashen wrote:
Aralyn Cormallen wrote:
When was the ship class called Escapers? Or Avoiders? They are Interceptors, their reason to be is to Intercept. And they do that well, their bubble-immunity allows them to crash through attempts to delay a pursuit and intercept a fleeing foe. Unfortunatly, they are too good at it, and instead became the fleeing foe.

If they could be delayed by bubbles and/or unable to instawarp, they wouldn't be that good at Intercepting stuff a few jumps away, would they? But hey - glad to see the issue remains that Interceptors can avoid bubblecamps, not their speed or lock range or any of that other stuff.

Quote:
Since when is actively defending your sov not supposed to be enough? I'm sorry that gate camps have instilled ptsd in you related to bubbles, but they are a feature of nullsec. The very essence of nullsec should be setting up a defence, controlling the terrain to help the defenders repel invaders, and I'm sorry, but that means lone vandals might have to lose a ship every once in a while. Aww. Castles have walls, they do not require soldiers stationed on the roof of every hut. We let you through the walls, and you run amok, we deserve to be scampering to put out the fires. But we man the walls with a solid defence, why shouldn't you have to make the slightest effort to actually breach that defence? And seriously, how big an effort do you really need to exert? Just, nut up, bust the camp and get your guys in; you don't even need to get a whole fleet in, just send a suicide team to engage the camp while you get a cyno frig in and blops or bridge as many entosis-ships as you like in to the interior.

Yes, you should be able to actively defend your space. And you absolutely can with the new mechanic, just like in the current sov system. Even against the invincible unkillable uncounterable Trollceptor.

The fact that "actively defending your space" means being active defending your space in more places than just chokepoints doesn't change that fact.

Look, bubble the hell out of the chokepoints. It's a great idea, works well, and keeps about 90%+ of the solo threats out. It puts a nice high bar for folks to clear if they want to bring bigger ships.

What it should NOT do is give you total immunity. Having Sovlazors on Trollceptors is a very simple way of ensuring you won't be.



So what exactly do you find fun about having to deal with attacks on your sov from ships you cant catch for 4 hours every day of every year? Zero fights, zero kills and no fun to be had at all.

THIS is what is so bad about the trollcepter, it means wars in the future will be mostly nothing but uncatchable interceptors sapping the willpower of the enemy for months on end. Defenders should actively fight to keep their space but the same needs to apply to the attackers too.