These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#1501 - 2015-03-13 03:57:31 UTC
I should point out that even if we reduce the amount of extraneous sov we hold, for whatever reason given, it will be "didn't want that sov anyway EH", "goon tears", and "CFC is collapsing"

Basically, you should totally sign up with massadeath to join in as Moa picks apart our sov laser-ridden corpse.

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 ?
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#1502 - 2015-03-13 04:00:22 UTC
It's actually fine to hold less sov (specifically, the non-station ones) since the enemy can't hold it long enough to do dangerous things like put up jump bridges (now very fatiguing) or cyno jammers (and you can take gates now)

Since, you know, it's basically asking to be sov trolled if you try and get a foothold sov... now with stations that is trouble, then again enemy is unlikely to seriously stage there if you can take it back fast too (since command nodes will spawn probably even further into your home, making it hard for them to defend)

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 ?
Kenneth Feld
Habitual Euthanasia
Pandemic Legion
#1503 - 2015-03-13 04:10:17 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Arthur Aihaken wrote:
Why not make the Entosis link like polarized weapons? Simply equipping it drops all your resistances to 0.


Makes defending way too easy in every situation where the attackers decide to fight.



If you own the grid, what difference does it make what your resists are. It would prevent ninja efforts more than anything, also trollceptor wrecks would litter the grid
Alp Khan
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#1504 - 2015-03-13 04:10:33 UTC
Veskrashen wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Soldarius wrote:
Now this begs another question: If I am in the process of capturing a sov structure I lose lock and then reestablish lock before the module cycle time is completed, will capture recommence immediately or do I have to wait to start a new cycle on my Entosis Link?

In that situation you would need to wait for you current cycle to complete, then activate the module again (triggering another warmup cycle before the module starts capturing). This means if you lose lock, you won’t be able to contest control of the structure for at least 2 minutes, and up to 4 minutes (the remainder of your current cycle, then the warmup cycle after the new activation).

And in one fell stroke, Fozzie has completely neutered Trollceptors. If you break lock on the structure, you're not getting any more progress for several minutes. If you bugger off as soon as you see someone on scan, one dude in a combat interceptor can effectively chase off any number of Trollceptors. Hell, Hero Keres and Hero Maulus and Hero Griffin and... well, anything small, fast, with a long lock range and any damp / ECM module - will be able to single handedly save dozens of systems just by warping on grid, breaking the Trollceptor's lock, and moving on to the next.

So, no longer any reason to nerf Trollceptors, since the solution is simple, achievable, scalable, and viable.

Can we move on to other link balance issues now?


No, he didn't. You should not take up the pretense of trollceptor problem being addressed.

First of all, jamming is a worthless mechanic which is reliant on extremely specific hull types, such as Falcon you mentioned, to be worthwhile.

Second of all, even with a Jamming dedicated hull, a trollceptor has options available through ECCM. It can get away with having virtually no tank at all. (viable for trollceptor, because it's not going to be pinned down or receive persistent DPS from anything)

Third of all, even if we ignore the facts pointing out that ECM is not a counter against a trollceptor, a trollceptor is simply a cheap, uncatchable ship. This is the gist of the problem. It isn't going to get caught, and even if it ends up getting killed due to pilot error, it isn't a significant loss and it makes it so that the attacker doesn't need to commit or take risks. The attacker can simply hop into another trollceptor from his trollceptor stash at his home station, and continue trolling.

The system as proposed is very much broken, as it does not require for the attacker to commit and take any significant risks to be able to dispute sovereignty in null-sec. Trollceptor makes the problem get even worse, as the attacker finds himself in a position that he doesn't even have to commit and take the risk of losing a cheap T2 frigate to dispute sovereignty. This has the potential for making sovereign null-sec an inhabited wasteland, as investing tens of billions for the infrastructure of a single system makes little sense when any individual with a T2 frigate can dispute it with costs grossly disproportionate to what is invested in by the defender.
Alp Khan
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#1505 - 2015-03-13 04:19:29 UTC
Veskrashen wrote:
Kristian Hackett wrote:
That's assuming they even allow the T2 module to be fit to an interceptor. My proposal is the T2 is on BC-class and larger ships, T1 on everything and has serious penalties to prop mods. Get away from this "trollceptor pwn all" chatter entirely.

Any "solution" that relies on restricting mods to certain hull sizes, or disallows T2 links on certain ships, or artificially reduces speed will invalidate several current and future fleet comps.


No. On the contrary, it will prevent trolls such as yourself who doesn't want to commit and take risks for attacking sovereign null-sec from doing so without taking risks and showing commitment, which is much more balanced.

Besides, I don't think anybody is designing this game with your specific fleet compositions in mind. This is most certainly the worst 'feed it to me with a silver spoon' type of entitlement I have ever seen over my time at EVE. Who cares if your current and future fleet compositions are suitable for disputing sovereignty?
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#1506 - 2015-03-13 04:19:46 UTC
It doesn't matter just like the "oh it's not a problem" people (who are fantasizing about ending our 0.0 dream), it's obvious that fozzie has decided that it's perfectly fine (and is probably also fantasizing about our 0.0 dream being ended) so there's no point to discussing.

All it took was fozzie to reinforce fozzie's belief that everything is A-OK and therefore ready for primetime.

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 ?
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#1507 - 2015-03-13 04:31:09 UTC
Kenneth Feld wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Arthur Aihaken wrote:
Why not make the Entosis link like polarized weapons? Simply equipping it drops all your resistances to 0.


Makes defending way too easy in every situation where the attackers decide to fight.



If you own the grid, what difference does it make what your resists are. It would prevent ninja efforts more than anything, also trollceptor wrecks would litter the grid


It would mean anything that fires up it sovlaser would instantly die in a fight while the likes of the trollceper would not be impacted as it avoids fights. You would push everyone even more towards capturing sov using ships built for avoiding fights.
Alp Khan
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#1508 - 2015-03-13 04:41:31 UTC
PotatoOverdose wrote:
Lena Lazair wrote:

Wait wait wait... you mean every single day goons will voluntarily fly predictably fit inty's into my space during my prime time play hours? I don't have to go on a 60j roam looking for them? I don't have to camp a gate for 4 days waiting for someone to wander by? I can just sit in my home system in my favorite anti-trollceptor setup of the day and they will continuously bring me PvP and KMs on a regular basis?

Holy crap, please sign me up for this morale-draining experience.

Best argument for this system, really.

Any interceptor that cannot warp away with its link active, that compromises its speed (via targetting range rigs instead of speed and agility rigs), and that neuters it's midslots (due to sebos) to get 110km+ lock range is simply a killmail. I like killmails.

Honestly, once people get tired of loosing so-called "trollceptors," I'd bet some interesting fights will start to happen in an around the sov structures and nodes spread across all of sov nullsec.

Mind you, the proposed system isn't perfect. The 4 hour time window doesn't sit well with me, but that's a topic for another thread, I guess...


That argument is invalid and your point is moot.

A trollceptor really doesn't need any targeting rigs, it can keep the agility/speed rigs. It can simply stay within it's innate targeting range envelope while running the entosis link, and if anything that poses a real threat appears on grid, he can start to burn away from the structure at max speed. This way, trollceptor either ends up getting the defenders chase him, but not really able to catch him until a time that he can activate his warp drive again, or if the defenders don't chase him, the grid breaks. Either option makes it so that the trollceptor will remain perfectly safe.
Carniflex
StarHunt
Mordus Angels
#1509 - 2015-03-13 05:03:14 UTC
Alp Khan wrote:
PotatoOverdose wrote:
Lena Lazair wrote:

Wait wait wait... you mean every single day goons will voluntarily fly predictably fit inty's into my space during my prime time play hours? I don't have to go on a 60j roam looking for them? I don't have to camp a gate for 4 days waiting for someone to wander by? I can just sit in my home system in my favorite anti-trollceptor setup of the day and they will continuously bring me PvP and KMs on a regular basis?

Holy crap, please sign me up for this morale-draining experience.

Best argument for this system, really.

Any interceptor that cannot warp away with its link active, that compromises its speed (via targetting range rigs instead of speed and agility rigs), and that neuters it's midslots (due to sebos) to get 110km+ lock range is simply a killmail. I like killmails.

Honestly, once people get tired of loosing so-called "trollceptors," I'd bet some interesting fights will start to happen in an around the sov structures and nodes spread across all of sov nullsec.

Mind you, the proposed system isn't perfect. The 4 hour time window doesn't sit well with me, but that's a topic for another thread, I guess...


That argument is invalid and your point is moot.

A trollceptor really doesn't need any targeting rigs, it can keep the agility/speed rigs. It can simply stay within it's innate targeting range envelope while running the entosis link, and if anything that poses a real threat appears on grid, he can start to burn away from the structure at max speed. This way, trollceptor either ends up getting the defenders chase him, but not really able to catch him until a time that he can activate his warp drive again, or if the defenders don't chase him, the grid breaks. Either option makes it so that the trollceptor will remain perfectly safe.


If it sits/orbits at 30.. 50 km from the structure it quite likely would not make it out of the range fast enough to avoid getting alphaed with it's low transversal if it just flies away straight line - if it uses manual piloting to maintain reasonable tranversal on the other hand it pulls range even slower and defender has more opportunities to try to shoot it down before it gets out of range or MJD/warp after it etc.

Here, sanity... niiiice sanity, come to daddy... okay, that's a good sanity... THWONK! GOT the bastard.
Specia1 K
State Protectorate
Caldari State
#1510 - 2015-03-13 05:08:32 UTC
The keres will be more important to this new sov mechanic than the ceptor, imho. Cheap, fast, nearly impossible to probe down. Target at 130km with a single sebo, and damp from 68+km with a falloff of 90km. Shield tanked with MASB or armor buff. Add disruptor II at over 50k with heat; it is the ideal defence ship for any kitey attackers.

Champion of the Knights of the General Discussion

Thunderdome
Carniflex
StarHunt
Mordus Angels
#1511 - 2015-03-13 05:19:05 UTC
A little more on Veskrashen's idea of having two versions of the module

(1) - Short Range, Short Cycle
(2) - Long Range, Long Cycle

It was already mentioned that such thing would make it harder to maintain sniping fleets that rely on on-grid warps to keep range and avoid bombers. However, I would argue that keeping the long range short cycle (current T2 proposal) version would not help a lot in this regard as the fight still happens around a static structure and having the link active already forces a significant doctrine change by preventing remote reps.

Another note in against the current plan is that cost is not an balancing factor. Under the current plan why would T1 version need to exist if T2 is better in every sense? Because of 60 mil price difference? That really is not an issue and we have already seen how well costs works for balance on Titans and Supercarriers ;) I.e., it does not.

So instead of going with currently planned T1 < T2 for the module I believe the Veskrashen's idea to be better implemented as either two similar tier versions of the module or even as a single module with two modes of operation - for example - Using some kind of fuel for reduced cycle and range mode and no fuel for long range, long cycle mode (or vice versa if that is preferable). The system is already present in-game in the form of anc. reppers / shield boosters.

Here, sanity... niiiice sanity, come to daddy... okay, that's a good sanity... THWONK! GOT the bastard.
Drogo Drogos
Liquilibi Nuclues
#1512 - 2015-03-13 08:15:20 UTC
Lena Lazair wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
They aren't there to take space, their job is to harass the enemy into defending their sov every day while not engaging them in any fights. If they do take space then that's just an added bonus. The entire point of them is to sap the moral of the defenders over the span of months.


Wait wait wait... you mean every single day goons will voluntarily fly predictably fit inty's into my space during my prime time play hours? I don't have to go on a 60j roam looking for them? I don't have to camp a gate for 4 days waiting for someone to wander by? I can just sit in my home system in my favorite anti-trollceptor setup of the day and they will continuously bring me PvP and KMs on a regular basis?

Holy crap, please sign me up for this morale-draining experience.



Seems you havent met European Goonion / Space Violance / ******** Sqaud / Top Goon or Reavers who dont excist.

Have fun when these guys target a part of space with the new changes o/
afkalt
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#1513 - 2015-03-13 10:01:32 UTC
Alp Khan wrote:
That argument is invalid and your point is moot.

A trollceptor really doesn't need any targeting rigs, it can keep the agility/speed rigs. It can simply stay within it's innate targeting range envelope while running the entosis link, and if anything that poses a real threat appears on grid, he can start to burn away from the structure at max speed. This way, trollceptor either ends up getting the defenders chase him, but not really able to catch him until a time that he can activate his warp drive again, or if the defenders don't chase him, the grid breaks. Either option makes it so that the trollceptor will remain perfectly safe.



Let me get this right .

From this thread they're broken because:

They'll be moving too fast to be caught
They'll be sitting still
They'll be too far away at 100+km
They'll be in normal lock range
They'll be targeting range fit
They'll be pure speed fit
They'll kill the defender
They'll not fight the defender
They'll burn off as soon as something is on dscan
They'll burn off as soon as they land on grid
It'll troll you alone
It'll have a full support fleet behind it.
It'll contest sov
It's not there to contest sov
....
....


It's very hard to keep track, can you guys make your minds up about which form the boogieceptor is going to take, please?
Speedkermit Damo
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#1514 - 2015-03-13 10:10:56 UTC
Falin Whalen wrote:
Lena Lazair wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
They aren't there to take space, their job is to harass the enemy into defending their sov every day while not engaging them in any fights. If they do take space then that's just an added bonus. The entire point of them is to sap the moral of the defenders over the span of months.


Wait wait wait... you mean every single day goons will voluntarily fly predictably fit inty's into my space during my prime time play hours? I don't have to go on a 60j roam looking for them? I don't have to camp a gate for 4 days waiting for someone to wander by? I can just sit in my home system in my favorite anti-trollceptor setup of the day and they will continuously bring me PvP and KMs on a regular basis?

Holy crap, please sign me up for this morale-draining experience.

I like how you think we will be going to your home system. Youre so cute. No we will be running around where you are not and you have to play wack-a-mole till you get fed up not catching any of us, and having to go on CTA button orbiting ops every day after till the servers go dark, or you quit and go to highsec. I think you will quit before we do. For you.


I think some of your meatshield alliances are not going to handle CTA button orbiting ops nearly as well as Goonswarm probably will. Time will tell.

Protect me from knowing what I don't need to know. Protect me from even knowing that there are things to know that I don't know. Protect me from knowing that I decided not to know about the things that I decided not to know about. Amen.
Dave Stark
#1515 - 2015-03-13 10:32:19 UTC
Aralyn Cormallen wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:

well if you haven't been forced off it, the only option left is that you are indeed holding the grid.

Except you haven't forced the close-range doctrine off it either, so they are holding the grid just as much as you are, but for some reason that seems to be acceptable to people, snipers should be allowed to be declared victors of a stalemate.

Fozzie has expressly stated he doesn't want doctrines determined by these mechanics. But while a sniper fleet is allowed to kite and snipe whilst running an e-link, and a brawler fleet cannot do so (as they will just get their e-links shot up while the kiters keep them safe and snug out of range), it pushes fleets to be required to be sniper doctrines, or you are just setting yourself for frustration and faliure.


of course they are, that's when a fight happens. if you're both holding a grid, you shoot each other, and the one left standing is the one that held the grid.

there's nothing that i've seen that stops you warping a brawling fleet directly on top of a sniping fleet and anihilating them?
Jean-Baptiste Zorginho
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#1516 - 2015-03-13 10:36:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Jean-Baptiste Zorginho
Schluffi Schluffelsen wrote:
Constructive and well written post, Fozzie, let's give some specific feedback.

1. the biggest issue I can see is a range of 250km of the T2 variation. It's a) not in line with the usual T1/T2 differences (a 10x better main attribute) and b) is it messing up with the "control" of the grid. Limiting the T1 version to 50km and the T2 version to 75km is keeping everything on fightable grid, removing the need for sniper entosis and anti-snipers. This is also going to remove the biggest issues with small-scale ships trolling around, any halfway-decent sov holder should be able to deal with this and this also forces people to bring a fleet capable of fighting a skirmish over the structure (attacker and defender).

2. shipclass restriction: Given the amount of modules introduced the past months like bastion mode which are even hull-specific, I don't think it wouldn't be too restricting to boost certain less loved ships in Eve and give them a meaningful role. On the other hand I do get why you don't want to restrict it but you could just limit the entosis link range.

3. Drone boats - sorry to say this but this is just another "module" that'll favor any drone based boat over others due to availability of utility highslots. Either rebalance other hulls to be able to fit a entosis link without killing of a good share of their dps or put a drone malus on the entosis link itself. We've been living in Ishtar Online way too long for now :)

4. In my personal opinion, there should be a certain degree of teamplay involved with sov structures - not a single person deploying a TP-like mod on a structure. I'd rather favor a system where more links have to be applied or where structures have a certain "entosis-resistance" bonus that can be overcome with more links - but a limit of how many (stacking penalty like on modules) - and the minimum time it'll take to grind it down is the one suggested in the dev blog (so 42 minutes for a fully upgraded system).

This would mean it encourages people to bring at least 3-4 entosis linked ships to get the best timer but a blob of 100 entosis links wouldn't make a difference. This should encourage small but efficient fleets to grind structures and provide content for both attacker and defender. In combination with a decreased entosis link range it'd mean good on-grid action with less trolling (warping off and on grid).


I really like the idea, just not sure whether CCP is able to apply the same stacking penalty to the Entosis Links as they can on modules. I would agree that it's better to have a well balanced Entosis module and mechanic than restricting it on hulls.

Remove range, encourage team play, don't encourage more n+1.
knobber Jobbler
State War Academy
Caldari State
#1517 - 2015-03-13 10:47:17 UTC
Lena Lazair wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
They aren't there to take space, their job is to harass the enemy into defending their sov every day while not engaging them in any fights. If they do take space then that's just an added bonus. The entire point of them is to sap the moral of the defenders over the span of months.


Wait wait wait... you mean every single day goons will voluntarily fly predictably fit inty's into my space during my prime time play hours? I don't have to go on a 60j roam looking for them? I don't have to camp a gate for 4 days waiting for someone to wander by? I can just sit in my home system in my favorite anti-trollceptor setup of the day and they will continuously bring me PvP and KMs on a regular basis?

Holy crap, please sign me up for this morale-draining experience.


If fun and engaging PvP for you is chasing a single ship round a constellation then I guess there is no hope.
Dras Malar
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#1518 - 2015-03-13 11:09:00 UTC
I'd like to rephrase my argument. I would like to do away with the sovlaser and instead keep structures, but simplify a lot of the unnecessary convoluted timers and all the things you need a flowchart to understand in Dominion. Bash a thing, get a timer, come back in 2 days to blow it up and take the system.

The industry index sounds like a good idea, and a way to use it for occupancy concerns with structures is to increase the resistances on the ihub or whatever structure you have to bash to take the system, so it takes more of a military presence on the field in terms of DPS like dreadnoughts to take a very well-used system.

I think the Entosis Link doesn't prioritize what we want, which is a risk/reward commitment, as much as structure bashing does. Sure a new group that isn't experienced enough to have invested in capital ships will be at a disadvantage when trying to take space, but that's true anyways. If we use a module and don't incentivize damage output to take sovereignty then we can end up with some annoying Trollcepter type situation even without Entosis-equipped interceptors, like with fast cruisers or whatever jumping out of wormholes, sneaking around and burning everyone out while we play wack-a-mole defense without the attacker having to actually commit militarily. I think that whole playstyle is counter to what nullsec should be about.

I also think we should wait on the sov update, whatever it turns out to be, at least a few more months to have this discussion over something this important and in the meantime improve nullsec to prepare us for actually using our space in the ways we're otherwise going to be punished for with an industry index.
FT Diomedes
The Graduates
#1519 - 2015-03-13 11:41:13 UTC
Dras Malar wrote:


I think the Entosis Link doesn't prioritize what we want, which is a risk/reward commitment, as much as structure bashing does. Sure a new group that isn't experienced enough to have invested in capital ships will be at a disadvantage when trying to take space, but that's true anyways. If we use a module and don't incentivize damage output to take sovereignty then we can end up with some annoying Trollcepter type situation even without Entosis-equipped interceptors, like with fast cruisers or whatever jumping out of wormholes, sneaking around and burning everyone out while we play wack-a-mole defense without the attacker having to actually commit militarily. I think that whole playstyle is counter to what nullsec should be about.


This is the problem with the Entosis module in a nutshell. It does not require a real commitment from the aggressor, but the defender must respond.

CCP should add more NPC 0.0 space to open it up and liven things up: the Stepping Stones project.

rsantos
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#1520 - 2015-03-13 13:06:46 UTC
FT Diomedes wrote:
Dras Malar wrote:


I think the Entosis Link doesn't prioritize what we want, which is a risk/reward commitment, as much as structure bashing does. Sure a new group that isn't experienced enough to have invested in capital ships will be at a disadvantage when trying to take space, but that's true anyways. If we use a module and don't incentivize damage output to take sovereignty then we can end up with some annoying Trollcepter type situation even without Entosis-equipped interceptors, like with fast cruisers or whatever jumping out of wormholes, sneaking around and burning everyone out while we play wack-a-mole defense without the attacker having to actually commit militarily. I think that whole playstyle is counter to what nullsec should be about.


This is the problem with the Entosis module in a nutshell. It does not require a real commitment from the aggressor, but the defender must respond.


If I drop SBUs now on your system you better go shot them. What I've I committed? A few sbus?!