These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
King Fu Hostile
Shiva Furnace
#1881 - 2015-03-31 07:10:43 UTC
Malthraz wrote:
To change this, what I think should happen is that the initial attack should require the same capture mechanics as the final defense, with one exception. That exception being, that if the attacker cannot win the capture-the-node-game within the vulnerability window the defenders structures are safe. So it would be impossible for a lone attacker to troll their way to victory if the system had a good defensive timer bonus.


Pretty awesome suggestion. Does not hinder steamrolling unused space, but generates more fights in occupied space, while elegantly dealing with sovtrolling without artificial restrictions.

+1


Kristian Hackett
The Dark Space Initiative
Initiative Mercenaries
#1882 - 2015-03-31 18:23:53 UTC
So.... going through and catching up on 15 pages of threads, one thing caught my eye that people seem to be missing in regards to the Trollceptor, although this may require some additional confirmation as I can't find it actually written anywhere yet - no prop mods (MWD/AB) while Link is active. If that's the case, as long as there's a hefty cooldown that prevents an interceptor from being able to drop the link right away and then burn out, there's no way an interceptor is going to move fast enough to escape anything.

But then again, maybe this is just hearsay unless someone can confirm that is indeed one of the planned penalties.

Aircraft Maintenance - Using a high school diploma to fix what a college degree just f***ed up. "Life is too short to drink cheap beer."

Cade Windstalker
#1883 - 2015-03-31 22:11:08 UTC
Kristian Hackett wrote:
So.... going through and catching up on 15 pages of threads, one thing caught my eye that people seem to be missing in regards to the Trollceptor, although this may require some additional confirmation as I can't find it actually written anywhere yet - no prop mods (MWD/AB) while Link is active. If that's the case, as long as there's a hefty cooldown that prevents an interceptor from being able to drop the link right away and then burn out, there's no way an interceptor is going to move fast enough to escape anything.

But then again, maybe this is just hearsay unless someone can confirm that is indeed one of the planned penalties.


This already came up way back at the start and was responded to by CCP. The issue with this is that it completely torpedoes kiting fleets, which are a legitimate tactic.
Miner Hottie
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#1884 - 2015-04-01 06:24:10 UTC
Cade Windstalker wrote:
Miner Hottie wrote:
Um we Goonswarm, live in Deklein, which has some of the highest sov indexs in all of null sec, we live the **** out our space. The ability to properly live and rat in our space causes the system sprawl you see. Ratting in a system below 0.6 is generally bad. Hence we rarely bother with them unless one of our more autistic memebrs rats rally points for the 6 of 10 escalation. If this was properly addressed (and some of fozzies comments about null sec income lead me to believe he won't touch it because its "fine") then the sprawl will continue with remaining systems held for completeness or left a wasteland.


If these new structures let you dial-a-yield on the sec status of your systems then it's likely the bad areas will fade or be rented off (depending on the level of customization). The alternative is anything that's not locked down getting the crap harassed out of it because 15 minute timers and "lol goons".

I think if this system doesn't at least make it significantly harder to hold large chunks of space, "for completeness" or otherwise, then it's failed at least one of its objectives. If you can actually hold it, or its being worked by the members, then great whatever, but un-used space should be hard to defend.

Adjustable yields/proper sov upgrades sounds great. What will CCP actually deliver?

It's all about how hot my mining lasers get.

Miner Hottie
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#1885 - 2015-04-01 06:25:58 UTC
Malthraz wrote:
My biggest problem with this threadnaught is that Goons are actually making some sense.

That aside, I think the main issue is that very little commitment is needed to kick off the capture process.

To change this, what I think should happen is that the initial attack should require the same capture mechanics as the final defense, with one exception. That exception being, that if the attacker cannot win the capture-the-node-game within the vulnerability window the defenders structures are safe. So it would be impossible for a lone attacker to troll their way to victory if the system had a good defensive timer bonus.

My proposed system is this:
The initially attack has to be made against the station/ihub/etc. and would still require the 10-40 minutes +2 minutes for warm up and would still have to be made during the vulnerability window. If this is successful then the various capture nodes start to spawn across the constellation. The attacker will have to capture nodes and gain a 10 node advantage (or whatever they decide is appropriate, could be fewer for the initial attack to make it a bit easier to achieve) to put the station/ihub/etc. into reinforce as per the CCP proposed system.

Even if you had only a 2x defensive time bonus, and assuming that a solo attacker had to capture 10 nodes, it would not be possible to solo their way to victory. 2 minutes warm up, 20 minutes capture, then 10 nodes multiplied by (20 minutes +2 minutes warm up) = 242 minutes of capturing (+travel time) within 240 vulnerability window. Therefore, not possible. Against a system with no defensive bonus and nobody defending, it would be possible.

The system I propose makes taking sov harder. The CCP proposed system makes trolling people way too appealing. While my proposed system does not require much of a commitment of isk by the attacker, it does require a definite commitment of time. The attacker will have the advantage because they know when and where they are going to attack. A solo or half-hearted attack will be easy to defend if people are in their system (solo attacks do not even need to be defended with a good defensive time bonus). However, a committed attacker will require defensive response. The defender may be able to scramble enough people to hold some of the systems in their constellation and may be able to capture enough of the nodes to survive through until the vulnerability window closes. So, the defender's lack of numbers and preparation is compensated by their defensive time bonus and that the attack is working against the clock.

What do you think?




In regard to the troll-ceptor, I think it could probably be taken out with a 10mn MWD Svipul. I messed around with one last night and did 14k m/s, with heat. Add links and implants and you can definitely chase down a troll-ceptor. A good troll-ceptor pilot may be able to evade a single Svipul because it handles like a barge, but at least there are options on the table. Personally, I think the link should add mass, similar to Hictor's bubble. However, there are many game-mechanic options on the table and I trust CCP (perhaps I am being naive here) to make sure the troll-ceptor does not make it into the game.

It's worse than you think, not only are the goons making sense, but Gevlon Goblin is agreeing with us.

It's all about how hot my mining lasers get.

Cade Windstalker
#1886 - 2015-04-01 15:34:17 UTC
Miner Hottie wrote:
Adjustable yields/proper sov upgrades sounds great. What will CCP actually deliver?


I think that's largely dependent on our feedback here, which means discussing what mechanics we'd like these structures to have in the relevant threads and pushing for the ones we think would create good and interesting gameplay. In this case I think Sov Upgrades go in the Administration Hubs and Advertisement Centers thread

Since Goons are one of the largest and most active Sov-holding entities I'm sure CCP would like to have your feedback, as well as feedback from everyone who just groaned at that sentence (and everyone else).
Xe'Cara'eos
A Big Enough Lever
#1887 - 2015-04-01 21:26:18 UTC
has anyone thought about making the entosis link cause a stacking penalty to incoming RR, or perhaps allowing remote assistance, with the EXCEPTION of reps (so rECCM, rSeBo, rTC, cap xfer, etc is allowed)

if one cannot be repped with the link active, the meta will either favour massive amount of derp-ships (derptrons, etc), warping in as a bunch, and the sheer time it takes to kill them all will allow significant progress to be made unless you have a similar mass of derp-ships or a trolletto on hand - bigger blob winning all the time makes for pretty boring (if realistic) gameplay

I'd be very interested to know how often triage, siege, and bastion are initiated in fights larger than, say 100 players, because that's pretty much what entosis achieves - a mobile state of seige.

I also maintain that capping out an entosis user's speed at something like 3km/s isn't too unreasonable

tl;dr
consider:
allowing RR but with stacking penalty
allowing remote assistance, excluding RR
capping the speed of an entosis-fitted/using ship

For posting an idea into F&I: come up with idea, try and think how people could abuse this, try to fix your idea - loop the process until you can't see how it could be abused, then post to the forums to let us figure out how to abuse it..... If your idea can be abused, it [u]WILL[/u] be.

Cade Windstalker
#1888 - 2015-04-01 21:51:06 UTC
Xe'Cara'eos wrote:
has anyone thought about making the entosis link cause a stacking penalty to incoming RR, or perhaps allowing remote assistance, with the EXCEPTION of reps (so rECCM, rSeBo, rTC, cap xfer, etc is allowed)

if one cannot be repped with the link active, the meta will either favour massive amount of derp-ships (derptrons, etc), warping in as a bunch, and the sheer time it takes to kill them all will allow significant progress to be made unless you have a similar mass of derp-ships or a trolletto on hand - bigger blob winning all the time makes for pretty boring (if realistic) gameplay

I'd be very interested to know how often triage, siege, and bastion are initiated in fights larger than, say 100 players, because that's pretty much what entosis achieves - a mobile state of seige.

I also maintain that capping out an entosis user's speed at something like 3km/s isn't too unreasonable

tl;dr
consider:
allowing RR but with stacking penalty
allowing remote assistance, excluding RR
capping the speed of an entosis-fitted/using ship


If you bring too many ships to one fight then the attacker will just go harass the twenty or so other Sov structures in the constellation until one drops. Then, when the timer rolls around, you have the same problem where if you over-commit to one area the rest of the nodes will fall and you'll be down by 3 node points.

If someone brings an Alpha fleet you just bring more Entosis Links, since there's no requirement that you only have one active on a structure at a time. Plus while you're alpha-ing down the no-doubt bait-tanked Entosis ships the rest of the enemy fleet is DPSing you down right back.

TLDR: Lets see a practical test or two, or at least some examples with hard numbers, before we declare that something here absolutely won't work just based on a gut feeling and napkin math.
CCP Fozzie
C C P
C C P Alliance
#1889 - 2015-04-01 22:29:36 UTC
Hey everyone. We're now ready to bring forward a new more detailed set of Entosis Link information and start getting feedback based on that. I'm going to lock and unsticky this thread so that we keep the discussion as focused as possible. Please continue your discussion in this thread.

Game Designer | Team Five-0

Twitter: @CCP_Fozzie
Twitch chat: ccp_fozzie