Player Features and Ideas Discussion

even on paper it looks pretty meh.

nothing about the new sov system makes me want to go and particpate in anything remotely related to sov. making isk is **** in sov null, i don't need to live there to pvp there, living there is a logistical pain in the ****, and this new sov system just sounds like if i were to want to participate i want to find some one who's prime time is outside of my usual playing hours so i don't have to deal with things like "trollceptors" (which yes, we know won't take all our sov, but equally i don't want to spend 4hrs a day chasing them off - it's dull)

And in one finely crafted response does the Yay camp rest it's case.

Hi Fozzie,
Why the 250km range on the T2 module? What was the thinking behind that number?

If T2 range was 75km - targeting range for a vanilla Celestis - then 'trollceptors' wouldn't be a concern.

Is it because a 75ish km range would favour brawling over sniping fleets? Because as the T2 range increases from 75km, so does the number of additional rules needed to prevent 'pure evasion' tactics. I believe that those additional rules (not interceptors, not T3s, no prop mods, etc) are _worse_ than a slight bias towards brawlers, who can activate entosis links as they land on grid, as opposed to snipers, who have to win the grid first.

Many thanks for having this debate out in the open.

Regards,
- D

See now this, this is worth talking about. Much better than about 95% of the other posts in here!

This point is valid almost IRRESPECTIVE of the (subcap) hulls this is mounted on. So this should be concentrated on as a priority and NOT the hulls - we all know how easy it is for a dedicated effort to get behind lines. Your point (I've assumed the numbers are valid) is a huge one and hinges around the entire mechanic and not the ships/modules themselves.

I do wonder if it will take us into a M.A.D. type policy though.


That being said, there are already a LOT of RF's done simply to cause grief/poke a fight with no intention of taking the asset RF'd. It is possible we are overestimating the level of harassment, as it it very possible to harass today.

I dont know why you need to be told this fozzie but its pretty damn obvious that entosis links should not be able to be fit to frgs of any kind if you want to threaten someones sov that they live in and have invested time and isk in you shouldnt be able to fo it in a measly 40 mill frig it should be at the very least t2 destroyers and up and there should be a velocity penalty too people dont play eve so they can chase ceptors around thier space for 4 hours it will also make it very hard for smaller alliances to fend of attacks from larger ones and dosent help them at all

I have every confidence in my ability to catch and kill Interceptors with no tank and meager DPS who are unable to warp off grid for 2-5 minutes at a time. Especially on my home turf, where I can bring links and use Snakes far more easily than they can. I understand that a culture where solo / small gang PvP is looked down upon and folks don't bother to log in and play the game unless there's a rage ping to sit on a titan and gank some poor idiot on the other side of the map might not breed the kind of pilots that can handle that kind of challenge, but that's a cultural failing on your part that CCP shouldn't cater to with easy mechanics.

In addition, FW is essentially all about defending your sov - or attacking sov - that's vulnerable 23/7 from these kinds of threats. You all will have it far easier than we do - limited window of vulnerability, no need for the defender to work 2x as hard to undo the work of an attacker, no deadspace to worry about, etc etc etc - especially since the attacker can't disengage at will due to the Entosis Link preventing him from warping off.

Look, I know you want to build a really high wall to keep all the rampaging hordes out, and thereby avoid having to be active in your space all over rather than just at a few strategic systems. Since that's directly counter to CCP's goal with these sov changes, and since Interceptors are pretty much the only reliable way to ensure you can't pull that kind of tactic off with ease, I think it's fair to say that we can expect Interceptors to be able to use Entosis Links, even (and perhaps especially) the T2 versions.

It would probably be a lot more productive if folks started talking about what kind of limiting factors - cap use, fitting requirements, etc - that would force said Interceptors to make "interesting choices" to use them. While, of course, keeping in mind they still need to be able to be used on T1 frigates like Atrons.

I have removed a post discussing forum moderation.

How much do you want to bet Friday will pass us by before Fozzie even gets around to engaging us in this discussion or at least giving us details of the mod that he's completely left out?

Or that "attackers" are so desperate to avoid expending any cost whatsoever in order to perform harrassment, that the second that a cheap, risk-free option popped up, they were all over it.

We need to make sure that tactics to avoid things like cowardly risk-averse troll harrassers don't become invulnerable. And that means dropping the hammer on any ability for the Interceptor to use Entosis Links.

See, it works both ways.

I'm sorry you don't like bubbles, but they are a fundamental feature of null-sec. When you ask what is the difference between Nullsec and anywhere else, the answer is sov, bombs, and bubbles. Thats it. It is asinine to develop new sovereignty specifically to work around a mechanic that only occurs in that area of space. Its shooting yourself in the head to cure a toothache. Quite frankly, if the only reason for allowing Entosis Links on Interceptors is because CCP think bubbles are a broken mechanic and screw with the new ethos (and I don't think they do, but screw it, lets be theoretical here), just remove bubbles entirely. Then disallow Interceptors, and anything else smaller than a Cruiser, from carrying the Entosis Link. Your "problem" is solved. My "problem" is solved. But if it turns out CCP doesn't think bubbles are the problem, aren't broken, and don't screw with the new ethos, then there really is no arguement for why Interceptors need to keep the ability to use Entosis Links.

I got sick of running these numbers by hand and made a google docs spreadsheet to handle it. It's linked below, so you can make a copy and you can play with the costs of each ping and the cost of the sov structure yourself. Set the cost per ping by hand, and set the cost of the ihub by setting the number of upgrades of each level in it. Results are on the second (Net Cost) sheet.

A few examples from running numbers:
At 10M isk risked per ping and the defender winning 90% (9 out of 10!) of all ihub reinforces:

• With an ihub with two L2 upgrades, you would need to win 90% of all ihub pings.
• With an ihub with two L3 upgrades, you would need to win 95% of all ihub pings.
• With an ihub with two L4 upgrades, you would need to win 97% of all ihub pings

Try it out yourself at https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1XFFmVyn6Ov-paaHjmMuq8OMgfMTMiF2Z3WHyEsRikX8/edit?usp=sharing