These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Freedom Nadd
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#1141 - 2015-03-11 12:14:54 UTC
ISD Ezwal wrote:
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.


Deleting threads for rumour mongering in a discussion in the F+I section ... about a module where CCP are apparently seeking feedback without actually disclosing the details of said module .... a little heavy handed perhaps?

Also perhaps time for the ACTUAL gameplay details to be released including fitting requirements so mongering of rumours can be avoided?
Dave Stark
#1142 - 2015-03-11 12:18:54 UTC
knobber Jobbler wrote:
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.


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)
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#1143 - 2015-03-11 12:39:57 UTC
Dave Stark wrote:

nothing about the new sov system makes me want to go and particpate in anything remotely related to sov.


My metric was much the same. When I said to myself "Self, what would you do with this new system?", he answered with "well, about all that can be done is just screw with the people who live there, make their lives hell."

Then the third guy said "Hey wait, we already have a way to screw with renters, AFK cloaking, and it works fine", to which myself responded "Yeah, but now we can force them to waste literal hours of their time with almost no recourse against us".

And the fourth guy chimed in with "Yes, precious! We will take the Fedo from the filthy Gallente, yes yes! Gollum!" and then the other three whacked him on the noggin.

And yes, before you mention it, I am fully aware that I have a rich inner life.

"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.

Freedom Nadd
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#1144 - 2015-03-11 12:44:19 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:

nothing about the new sov system makes me want to go and particpate in anything remotely related to sov.


My metric was much the same. When I said to myself "Self, what would you do with this new system?", he answered with "well, about all that can be done is just screw with the people who live there, make their lives hell."

Then the third guy said "Hey wait, we already have a way to screw with renters, AFK cloaking, and it works fine", to which myself responded "Yeah, but now we can force them to waste literal hours of their time with almost no recourse against us".

And the fourth guy chimed in with "Yes, precious! We will take the Fedo from the filthy Gallente, yes yes! Gollum!" and then the other three whacked him on the noggin.

And yes, before you mention it, I am fully aware that I have a rich inner life.


And in one finely crafted response does the Yay camp rest it's case.
Aralyn Cormallen
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#1145 - 2015-03-11 12:54:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Aralyn Cormallen
Veskrashen wrote:

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.
90%? High bar? Try like 1% and the lowest bar offered. Take a look around any sov region these days, its Ceptor, Ceptor, Ceptor, Co-ops, Ceptor, Ceptor, Astero. Its dull. And why would they want to bring bigger ships, doing so is actively placing yourself at a disadvantage. People don't do that in sov warfare.

Quote:
What it should NOT do is give you total immunity.
What total immunity? Engage the camp. Either kill it, or distract it long enough to get your saboteurs through. People do this every day in EC-, in fact, I'd dare say the camp there is held more frequetly by hostiles than friendlies!

Quote:
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.
And whats wrong with that? That sounds like active defending to me. If they try to box you in, fight your way out.

Every "concern" you have is negated by engaging in a fight, something all these non-sovholders will have us believe is what they are coming here for. Why do you not want that fight you came for?
Daimon Os
Working as designed
#1146 - 2015-03-11 12:59:17 UTC
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
Eli Apol
Definitely a nullsec alt
#1147 - 2015-03-11 13:16:31 UTC
Daimon Os wrote:
Hi Fozzie, Why the 250km range on the T2 module? What was the thinking behind that number?

I believe 250km is the maximum locking range in the game as a hard cap (at least someone said that many many pages ago in a galaxy long forgotten)

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

afkalt
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#1148 - 2015-03-11 13:28:58 UTC
Borachon wrote:
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.



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.
Yroc Jannseen
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#1149 - 2015-03-11 13:30:15 UTC
Huh okay I guess you're just outright censoring posts now.

Well even though this was a response to a Mike M post, that apparently was rule breaking, this view still has merit.

All of the repetition can be put to an end by CCP taking an actual stance or making a real response to concerns. Frankly the OP was a bit patronizing and on top of that added very little other than to say they are opposed to most of the communities ideas. But thanks for feedback.

For all of his faults at least Greyscale engaged with the these threads.

I really think it would be in the best interest to tread lightly on the censorship.
hanabal drake
Volition Cult
Goonswarm Federation
#1150 - 2015-03-11 13:48:30 UTC
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
afkalt
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#1151 - 2015-03-11 13:57:54 UTC
hanabal drake wrote:
it will also make it very hard for smaller alliances to fend of attacks from larger ones and dosent help them at all


They're (smalls) hardly smacking them around today either.

As I posted above, with the data from Borachon - the hull makes literally no cost difference until you hit capitals.

ANY T1 is going to be trivial because of insurance.

We should not be focused on hulls so much as the entire mechanic.
Veskrashen
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#1152 - 2015-03-11 14:12:02 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
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.

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.

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

Veskrashen
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#1153 - 2015-03-11 14:20:02 UTC
Aralyn Cormallen wrote:
90%? High bar? Try like 1% and the lowest bar offered. Take a look around any sov region these days, its Ceptor, Ceptor, Ceptor, Co-ops, Ceptor, Ceptor, Astero. Its dull. And why would they want to bring bigger ships, doing so is actively placing yourself at a disadvantage. People don't do that in sov warfare.

So what you're saying is that things are already bad enough that folks don't bother to bring anything other than a Ceptor, because they're too easily mobbed. Which, of course, pretty much demonstrates that in order to have any impact on enemy sov in deep sovspace, you need to be able to mount an Entosis Link on an Interceptor. Thanks for helping prove my point.

Quote:
And whats wrong with that? That sounds like active defending to me. If they try to box you in, fight your way out.

Every "concern" you have is negated by engaging in a fight, something all these non-sovholders will have us believe is what they are coming here for. Why do you not want that fight you came for?

Most "concerns" are due to the ability of N+1 mechanics, when combined with bubbles and instalockers, to ensure that large entities will never be under threat from smaller ones. Since part of the goal is to ensure Fozziesov doesn't degenerate into N+1 again (at least not as easily) we need to make sure that tactics to avoid things like big blobby bubblecampers don't become invulnerable. And that means letting Interceptors use Entosis Links.

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

ISD Decoy
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
#1154 - 2015-03-11 14:23:30 UTC
I have removed a post discussing forum moderation.

Quote:
12. Discussion of forum moderation is prohibited.

The discussion of EVE Online forum moderation actions generally leads to flaming, trolling and baiting of our ISD CCL moderators. As such, this type of discussion is strictly prohibited under the forum rules. If you have questions regarding the actions of a moderator, please file a support ticket under the Community & Forums Category.

ISD Decoy

Captain

Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)

Interstellar Services Department

Dave Stark
#1155 - 2015-03-11 14:29:55 UTC
Veskrashen wrote:
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.


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


no interesting choices, fozzie wants boring and pointless gameplay to be an option.
Primary This Rifter
Mutual Fund of the Something
#1156 - 2015-03-11 14:44:29 UTC
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?
Yroc Jannseen
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#1157 - 2015-03-11 14:50:43 UTC
Primary This Rifter wrote:
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?


I don't know but it seems the last few posts where I posed that question have disappeared.
Aralyn Cormallen
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#1158 - 2015-03-11 15:05:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Aralyn Cormallen
Veskrashen wrote:

So what you're saying is that things are already bad enough that folks don't bother to bring anything other than a Ceptor, because they're too easily mobbed. Which, of course, pretty much demonstrates that in order to have any impact on enemy sov in deep sovspace, you need to be able to mount an Entosis Link on an Interceptor. Thanks for helping prove my point.

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.

Quote:
we need to make sure that tactics to avoid things like big blobby bubblecampers don't become invulnerable. And that means letting Interceptors use Entosis Links.
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.
Schlampa
Doomheim
#1159 - 2015-03-11 15:11:54 UTC
You could always make the entosis link consume ozone every cycle.
Borachon
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#1160 - 2015-03-11 15:25:02 UTC
afkalt wrote:

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 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