These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Aiyshimin
Shiva Furnace
#161 - 2015-03-09 15:01:07 UTC
Amyclas Amatin wrote:
SilentAsTheGrave wrote:
Amyclas Amatin wrote:
Will Entosis links do anything to ship velocity?

If they don't, even if you don't allow frigates to fit them, we will troll in orthruses or 10mn AB tactical destroyers.

It's like you keep ignoring the fact I can just skip over and stop you with my own Entosis link. Why do you keep doing this??


Hah. Made you babysit the structure by putting your own ship in the open. Objective complete.

Rinse and repeat until you run out of people willing to do that for 4 hours a day.


It's almost as you're thinking that it's easier for you to "troll" a system than it is for the defenders to decloak their sov beam alt on the structure and carry on with their lives

One more time:

You need to kill the other guy with the Entosis Link if you want your Entosis Link to have any effect.

afkalt
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#162 - 2015-03-09 15:02:03 UTC
Dave Stark wrote:
afkalt wrote:
So how is camping a gate at chokes for 4 hours different from defending structures for 4 hours? How is that not the same overhead on the players?


because choke points require significantly less man hours, for a start.


So over-extended entities can easily hold their space by concentrating scarce player resources? It's almost as if these very changes were designed to shatter that paradigm isn't it?

Trollceptors are an myth who will only threaten the over extended, the owners huge tracts of empty space out there.

If you live in the space, these things are a fly to swat away (and get some juicy loot drops in the process). If you don't - they'll be a scourge - by design by all accounts.

You'll have up to 40 minutes to stop them.

NB: I do think that the defender should have occupancy bonuses applied inversely to defence timers - so at max level they "defend" an uncontested node 4x faster thus taking ~2 minutes of their time.
John McCreedy
Eve Defence Force
#163 - 2015-03-09 15:02:47 UTC
The Mittani wrote:
Though it may come as a surprise to some, I'm a big fan of the new system, with some tweaks around the edges - tweak the links a little and I'm happy with them.

Here are some options I'd be in favor of w/r/t Entosis Links .

AttentionNone of these ideas are mineAttention - they come from Xttz, Progodlegend, or are otherwise ubiquitous across the community.


  • Interdiction Nullifiers could interfere with the activation of an Entosis Link - T3s would need to refit a different subsystem once at a target via a moble depot, and the mods would not work at all with interceptors.
  • Once activated, the Entosis Link could disable any fitted propulsion mod, like siege/triage currently.
  • Progodlegend's idea - we could limit the link module to cruiser class hulls and above via cpu/pg.


I'd be happy with any/all of the above three tweaks.

Cheers!


That still doesn't address the fundamental issue of any single pilot in your local has to be treated as a potential threat to your sovereignty during a four hour window which means boring the socks off some of your pilots. The problem with this thread is its looking solely at the Entosis link where as the problem with the Entosis link is when its coupled with a vulnerability window. The two issues go hand in hand. None of these ideas address that issue and all of them are dismissed in the initial post of this thread. I agree the sov proposal is a fine starting position but it needs refinement and none of these ideas achieve that.

13 years and counting. Eve Defence Force is recruiting.
Dunk Dinkle
Brave Newbies Inc.
Brave Collective
#164 - 2015-03-09 15:03:32 UTC
I'm excited to try the new system.

Personally, I don't give much credence to the EFT Warriors. IMHO, you'll need to hold the grid to pull off a capture.

A few ideas to consider:

Industry: Any work done in the Industry UI, manufacturing, research, etc., should count toward the 'occupancy' industry calculation. That would lead to the better development of self-sufficient constellations that move resources around.

Entosis Link Skill: Perhaps another skill becomes the requirement to use the T2 version? Logistics V, Anchoring V, Fleet Command I ? Or another skill that currently has a very limited use.

Again, thanks for the hard work. We all look forward to trying the new system out.
Daalamira
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#165 - 2015-03-09 15:04:50 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Hello folks. ...

Thanks
-Fozzie



You really should go into politics, you just posted a wall of text without saying a damn thing relevant to the concerns of the community.

If you are going to force this "entosis" mechanic on us at least make it somewhat logical. An Entosis Link should require you to create a stable link with the sov structure which as part of it's mechanic means you cannot move... let's logically tie this to the same reason we cannot move while opening a cynosural field perhaps?

So far all I've seen in your Phase 1 and Phase 2 is the continued degradation of the game started by Greyscale.

My interpretation of your phases so far...

Phase 1: Turn regions owned by true power blocs into fortresses (Yes CFC lost a few regions, but they were overextended)

Phase 2: Let high sec pubbies attempt to take sov so they can take it, go broke, and get sent back to high sec. (Small groups don't have the discipline, knowledge, or income to maintain sov. And don't tell me all systems in the game is worth holding, because the income in a -0.1 is nowhere near equal to the income available in a -1.0)

Phase 3: ??? Do what we told you to do in the first place?

I realize half of this is off topic for this thread, but I wanted it all in one place.
Kinis Deren
Mosquito Squadron
D0GS OF WAR
#166 - 2015-03-09 15:05:08 UTC
The Mittani wrote:
Though it may come as a surprise to some, I'm a big fan of the new system, with some tweaks around the edges - tweak the links a little and I'm happy with them.

Here are some options I'd be in favor of w/r/t Entosis Links .

AttentionNone of these ideas are mineAttention - they come from Xttz, Progodlegend, or are otherwise ubiquitous across the community.


  • Interdiction Nullifiers could interfere with the activation of an Entosis Link - T3s would need to refit a different subsystem once at a target via a moble depot, and the mods would not work at all with interceptors.
  • Once activated, the Entosis Link could disable any fitted propulsion mod, like siege/triage currently.
  • Progodlegend's idea - we could limit the link module to cruiser class hulls and above via cpu/pg.


I'd be happy with any/all of the above three tweaks.

Cheers!


Nope.

We'd end up with a "bubble border" around every coalition to stop anyone from threatening the current sov null paradigm.

Allowing inties and T3's to fit and use the Entosis module prevents bubble spam being an effective strategy in nullifying the proposed sov mechanics.

Play the game and defend your systems then you won't have any issues coping with lone interceptors.
Groperson
State War Academy
Caldari State
#167 - 2015-03-09 15:05:43 UTC
davet517 wrote:
Alexander McKeon wrote:

This guy gets it. What the entosis link module as currently envisaged does is create a massive asymmetry in effort and expense betwixt the aggressor and defender; creating a dozen combat timers is far easier than defending the sixty systems which those timers could represent. There is also greatly differentiated risk in terms of assets required to defend versus to force a defense. If Brave can't muster the warm bodies, who in Eve could?


Yes. It is exactly asymmetric warfare. It does create a massive asymmetry, but, it counters the massive asymmetry in resources that exists in the game at present. An asymmetry that, if left unchecked, grows trillion after trillion. How many months of trillion isk income do you need before you are, for all intents, untouchable by anyone other than someone else who has trillion isk income?

I get that you'd like attackers to have to commit super-caps so that you can 3rd party in and kill them. I do. I've played that game. It's fun, but it's not good for the future prospects of the game. Between moons and renter income the asymmetry in resources has gotten way out of hand. A mechanic that makes wealth matter a lot less is probably exactly what's needed. I say that while sitting in a pimped Titan that I probably will have trouble giving away if this goes through.



Sure, allow the asymmetry in the attackers favor. But make the attackers have to commit something killable if they want to attack sov. A cruiser/ battlecruiser or above.

The attackers still have a huge 10x timer advantage if they just want to grief the defender, but the defender can now actually get some good content from the attacker incursions, by killing the gangs that come through.
afkalt
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#168 - 2015-03-09 15:06:39 UTC
John McCreedy wrote:
The Mittani wrote:
Though it may come as a surprise to some, I'm a big fan of the new system, with some tweaks around the edges - tweak the links a little and I'm happy with them.

Here are some options I'd be in favor of w/r/t Entosis Links .

AttentionNone of these ideas are mineAttention - they come from Xttz, Progodlegend, or are otherwise ubiquitous across the community.


  • Interdiction Nullifiers could interfere with the activation of an Entosis Link - T3s would need to refit a different subsystem once at a target via a moble depot, and the mods would not work at all with interceptors.
  • Once activated, the Entosis Link could disable any fitted propulsion mod, like siege/triage currently.
  • Progodlegend's idea - we could limit the link module to cruiser class hulls and above via cpu/pg.


I'd be happy with any/all of the above three tweaks.

Cheers!


That still doesn't address the fundamental issue of any single pilot in your local has to be treated as a potential threat to your sovereignty during a four hour window which means boring the socks off some of your pilots. The problem with this thread is its looking solely at the Entosis link where as the problem with the Entosis link is when its coupled with a vulnerability window. The two issues go hand in hand. None of these ideas address that issue and all of them are dismissed in the initial post of this thread. I agree the sov proposal is a fine starting position but it needs refinement and none of these ideas achieve that.



You have warning - you can wait until they start.

A cyno alt can stop their progress forcing them to either **** off, or come in to engage you. If you force them to engage, they can be trapped, caught and killed.

Who doesnt have a bunch of cyno alts?
davet517
Raata Invicti
#169 - 2015-03-09 15:08:03 UTC
EvilweaselFinance wrote:

infinity months, once supercaps are no longer the end-all of nullsec fights. isk isn't power.


It's better, but I wouldn't say it makes isk irreverent either. How many entosis fit cruisers can you buy for a trillion isk?

What it does do is make it really really hard to hold a sprawling empire just because you have that resource advantage.

I think that a companion change is going to have to be made, though, that allows system resources to scale with the number of people who occupy it. Replacing anoms with plexing and mining missions would do it. Then, a 2000 strong alliance could occupy, be happy with, and defend a constellation or two, instead of feeling like they need a whole region or more.
rsantos
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#170 - 2015-03-09 15:10:12 UTC
Alexander McKeon wrote:
Arkon Olacar wrote:
There's another issue people tend to forget when churning out "if you want to keep your sov you should be able to kill an interceptor" posts. When fighting for an ihub timer, large numbers of the defending alliance will be concentrated into a single constellation, to win the timer. If they don't show up, they risk losing ihubs and sov, and so the defender has to commit as many as possible to that timer.

Meanwhile there is nothing to stop a 3rd party from gathering a few dozen interceptors/frigates and RFing the rest of the region nearly unopposed. Sure there might be a few guys left who can form up to chase off roaming gangs, but can this small section of the online playerbase of the defenders be in several dozen places at once? Of course not. The next 'primetime' window would see dozens and dozens of timers in a 4 hour window, meaning the defenders would need to capture literally hundreds of command nodes, each taking at least 10 minutes.

At the minute there is only one thing stopping a 3rd party from RFing most of a region while the defending alliance is tied up at another timer - HP based warfare requires them to commit assets to do so. This element of risk from the aggressor must remain. There should be nothing to stop a 3rd party splitting up and trying to RF half the region at once, but if the defender turns up then that should result in explosions. If the aggressor can simply run away and the defender is left chasing shadows, unable to keep up with the sheer number of structures under attack simultaneously, then the defender would simply stop bothering. Living in nullsec would simply not be worth the effort.

This is me talking from the Brave perspective - if we would struggle to both contest a single major timer and keep Catch (one of the most densely populated nullsec regions in the game) free from a large number of small gangs, then how on earth are 'normal' alliances supposted to have a chance?

This guy gets it. What the entosis link module as currently envisaged does is create a massive asymmetry in effort and expense betwixt the aggressor and defender; creating a dozen combat timers is far easier than defending the sixty systems which those timers could represent. There is also greatly differentiated risk in terms of assets required to defend versus to force a defense. If Brave can't muster the warm bodies, who in Eve could?


I still see this has the defending part owing too much sov.
SilentAsTheGrave
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#171 - 2015-03-09 15:13:34 UTC
Ann Markson wrote:
While the Trolleceptor thing itself is a useless rage it adresses another issue. Currently the majority of Sov Null systems is worth ****.

CCP has the info and they are seeing boat loads of ISK being made in null. As in a LOT! Sorry this ruins your argument.
Groperson
State War Academy
Caldari State
#172 - 2015-03-09 15:14:14 UTC  |  Edited by: Groperson
Kinis Deren wrote:
The Mittani wrote:
Though it may come as a surprise to some, I'm a big fan of the new system, with some tweaks around the edges - tweak the links a little and I'm happy with them.

Here are some options I'd be in favor of w/r/t Entosis Links .

AttentionNone of these ideas are mineAttention - they come from Xttz, Progodlegend, or are otherwise ubiquitous across the community.


  • Interdiction Nullifiers could interfere with the activation of an Entosis Link - T3s would need to refit a different subsystem once at a target via a moble depot, and the mods would not work at all with interceptors.
  • Once activated, the Entosis Link could disable any fitted propulsion mod, like siege/triage currently.
  • Progodlegend's idea - we could limit the link module to cruiser class hulls and above via cpu/pg.


I'd be happy with any/all of the above three tweaks.

Cheers!


Nope.

We'd end up with a "bubble border" around every coalition to stop anyone from threatening the current sov null paradigm.

Allowing inties and T3's to fit and use the Entosis module prevents bubble spam being an effective strategy in nullifying the proposed sov mechanics.

Play the game and defend your systems then you won't have any issues coping with lone interceptors.



The thing is, if you allow interceptors to attack sov. What do you risk as the attacker?
Even in the most well defended region of space: deklein, you can just zoom interceptor gangs through with no risk because they are uncatchable.

That' bubble spam' that you encounter is called 'the residents defending their space'

You are advocating that even if residents defend their space, they will never be able to catch the people who are attacking it. That is broken, you risk nothing for attack and yet force the defenders to form a response and if it is insufficiently quick, do 10x the amount of work than the attackers.

If you want to play at the sov game then you should have to risk something, if you allow entosis links on interceptors, the attacker risks nothing. Whilst the defender has everything at risk.
Querns
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#173 - 2015-03-09 15:14:26 UTC
davet517 wrote:
EvilweaselFinance wrote:

infinity months, once supercaps are no longer the end-all of nullsec fights. isk isn't power.


It's better, but I wouldn't say it makes isk irreverent either. How many entosis fit cruisers can you buy for a trillion isk?

What it does do is make it really really hard to hold a sprawling empire just because you have that resource advantage.

I think that a companion change is going to have to be made, though, that allows system resources to scale with the number of people who occupy it. Replacing anoms with plexing and mining missions would do it. Then, a 2000 strong alliance could occupy, be happy with, and defend a constellation or two, instead of feeling like they need a whole region or more.

Given that Deklein is, by far, the densest region in eve, I have to agree that density should breed more density in such an exponential fashion.

This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
EvilweaselFinance
GoonCorp
Goonswarm Federation
#174 - 2015-03-09 15:14:45 UTC  |  Edited by: EvilweaselFinance
davet517 wrote:

It's better, but I wouldn't say it makes isk irreverent either. How many entosis fit cruisers can you buy for a trillion isk?

effectively infinity, which all sit in a station useless without the actual source of power in eve: people willing to fly them

isk makes a number of things possible or a little easier but its effect on power rapidly diminishes after you get the basics done, which happens well before you get to the 1t/month stage

virtually all wars in eve are won by making the players of the other side sick of logging in for one reason or another (deliberately denying fun, just pasting them often enough they know that they won't win the fight, etc.), not making their alliance broke. supercaps aside, the pilots you can get to log in and work together is vastly more important than the income your alliance has. the only real value isk has is in rewarding pilots for logging in or removing impediments for them to do so, but there's a real limit to how far you can spend isk that way.
Arkon Olacar
black.listed
#175 - 2015-03-09 15:15:05 UTC
rsantos wrote:
I still see this has the defending part owing too much sov.


Then how much sov is 'enough' sov for a 18k coalition? As clearly a single region is too much, according to our expert sov holder Mordus Angels.
EvilweaselFinance
GoonCorp
Goonswarm Federation
#176 - 2015-03-09 15:17:50 UTC
SilentAsTheGrave wrote:
Ann Markson wrote:
While the Trolleceptor thing itself is a useless rage it adresses another issue. Currently the majority of Sov Null systems is worth ****.

CCP has the info and they are seeing boat loads of ISK being made in null. As in a LOT! Sorry this ruins your argument.

ccp are the drunk guy looking for his keys under the streetlight and not where he lost them

isk itself is mostly generated in null. wealth does not correlate to isk generated: a miner makes ore, not isk, a mission runner makes LP, not isk, a manufacturer makes items, not isk

those things then get CONVERTED to isk, but figuring out what that means income-wise is hard so CCP has just looked at raw isk generated and ignored all the other ways you make income.
Edward Olmops
Gunboat Commando
#177 - 2015-03-09 15:17:56 UTC
Edward Olmops wrote:
Querns wrote:

The interceptor disengages, and uses its superior agility and warp speed to move to another capturable object.

The celestis cannot keep up with an interceptor.

The ability for an interceptor to be countered while sitting at one beacon was never in question. The interceptor's ability to disengage and travel with impunity is the issue.


Then... think of Ghost Sites.

Make it so that breaking the Entosis link does like 25k EXP damage (I am sure CCP Falcon will find a reason why that happens).
Interceptor disengages -> Poof.
Gets jammed or RSDed -> Poof.
(ok, please do not discuss whether a Svipul could possibly tank that - you get the idea)


Even better idea:

What if the Entosis link uses charges?
Say, the charges are priced in a way that any sov contesting ATTEMPT costs like [insert arbitrary amount here] (maybe 30mil? 50mil?)

So if you get trolled by trollceptor, just chase him off until he's broke.

As long as you are spacerich, you can keep trolling (as in all other parts of the game).

Other people would have to decide whether it is really worth contesting a hundred objectives if they can't take more than 3 anyway.

Note:
don't know if I got this right, but the system NEEDS a mechanism that makes contested things return to uncontested state automatically in case neither attacker nor defender show up at a timer.
Otherwise attackers could bore defenders to death by enforcing tons of timers with associated "orbiting tasks".
But that's a different issue.
Agent Known
State War Academy
Caldari State
#178 - 2015-03-09 15:18:07 UTC
In regards to the trollceptor fit, I can't even get a cap stable fitting with any of the interceptors ...and only a handful of them have the PG and low slots for the aux cores to make a MWD fit.

Plus, in doing so you're making them purpose-fit and useless for anything else. The defender has up to 40 minutes to contest an active system and pause all progress. This is assuming the interceptor makes it to the system to begin with.

Empires who hold enough space for their size will be able to counter any of this nonsense. For one thing, intel channels are a thing and neutrals will be reported long before they have a chance to capture anything.
Callduron
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#179 - 2015-03-09 15:18:30 UTC
I think Damps will be a pretty hard counter to any trollceptor.

Maybe a frigate that can lock to 80km and and move 8km/s sounds scary but a cheap Celestis dunks it completely. Just sit on the beacon and damp it, the ceptor has to come to within 20km and all sorts of tactics will kill a tankless frigate 20km away.

I write http://stabbedup.blogspot.co.uk/

I post on reddit as /u/callduron.
SilentAsTheGrave
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#180 - 2015-03-09 15:19:02 UTC
The Mittani wrote:
Though it may come as a surprise to some, I'm a big fan of the new system, with some tweaks around the edges - tweak the links a little and I'm happy with them.

Here are some options I'd be in favor of w/r/t Entosis Links .

AttentionNone of these ideas are mineAttention - they come from Xttz, Progodlegend, or are otherwise ubiquitous across the community.


  • Interdiction Nullifiers could interfere with the activation of an Entosis Link - T3s would need to refit a different subsystem once at a target via a moble depot, and the mods would not work at all with interceptors.
  • Once activated, the Entosis Link could disable any fitted propulsion mod, like siege/triage currently.
  • Progodlegend's idea - we could limit the link module to cruiser class hulls and above via cpu/pg.


I'd be happy with any/all of the above three tweaks.

Cheers!

I mentioned this in the first thread:

My idea (if something must be done to deal with nullified ships) was to not allow them to fit or carry in their cargo the Entosis Link.