These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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 Part 2

First post First post First post
Author
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#201 - 2015-04-04 21:53:14 UTC
baltec1 wrote:

See structures for a fix to this. (hint: mission agents in sov space)

Seen it, don't like mission agents as a fix, because it creates no competition for space, since mission agents scale infinitely (Well, till you hit Tidi anyway, so 700 people or so at once operating from a single system since they spread out into neighbours a little if we take Osmon as a guide.) Also it encourages solo play.

Yes, I have the same opinion on highsec missions and would rather see vastly greater numbers of 'system missions' which are like anomalies and have multiple objectives for a fleet to work together on, but if you do them solo you only have to complete one primary objective for the thing to despawn. Payouts per internal objective rather than the entire site to encourage co-operation since you don't lose cash by sharing (Possibly small multiplier even for completing multiple primary objectives which would be super hard/impossible to do solo due to distance, timers, whatever).
Pay out LP based on who owns the space and who has stations.

Not sure how that would translate well into Null space in terms of LP to avoid too much of an isk faucet, but being able to pick and chose which corp you get agents for doesn't sound like a particularly good plan either, that just sounds like 'we want to farm the best LP corp'.
But failing a new form of PvE site, I guess randomly allocated agents would work.
Cade Windstalker
#202 - 2015-04-04 22:43:57 UTC
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
baltec1 wrote:

See structures for a fix to this. (hint: mission agents in sov space)

Seen it, don't like mission agents as a fix, because it creates no competition for space, since mission agents scale infinitely (Well, till you hit Tidi anyway, so 700 people or so at once operating from a single system since they spread out into neighbours a little if we take Osmon as a guide.) Also it encourages solo play.

Yes, I have the same opinion on highsec missions and would rather see vastly greater numbers of 'system missions' which are like anomalies and have multiple objectives for a fleet to work together on, but if you do them solo you only have to complete one primary objective for the thing to despawn. Payouts per internal objective rather than the entire site to encourage co-operation since you don't lose cash by sharing (Possibly small multiplier even for completing multiple primary objectives which would be super hard/impossible to do solo due to distance, timers, whatever).
Pay out LP based on who owns the space and who has stations.

Not sure how that would translate well into Null space in terms of LP to avoid too much of an isk faucet, but being able to pick and chose which corp you get agents for doesn't sound like a particularly good plan either, that just sounds like 'we want to farm the best LP corp'.
But failing a new form of PvE site, I guess randomly allocated agents would work.


The vast majority of PvE content in Null currently is completeable by a solo ship and it's my understanding that this is the way the majority of null players do it because it maximizes their ISK income. Additional PvE content would be great, but seems outside the scope of the sov rework.

Just because it's possible for players to clump up around a single agent doesn't necessarily mean that it will happen, and if it does then their occupancy metrics in other systems will suffer and their space will be easier to take.

Also your original concern is somewhat moot since if you're fully utilizing a system's site spawns then you shouldn't have a problem hitting your occupancy metrics. There's no requirement that just the people using a system defend it so there's no requirement that a ton of people be packed into every system, and if we ever hit the point where every system in Player Controlled Null is being fully utilized I'll send the Game Design team a cake in congratulations on doing the impossible.
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#203 - 2015-04-04 22:49:54 UTC
Cade Windstalker wrote:

The vast majority of PvE content in Null currently is completeable by a solo ship and it's my understanding that this is the way the majority of null players do it because it maximizes their ISK income. Additional PvE content would be great, but seems outside the scope of the sov rework.

Just because it's possible for players to clump up around a single agent doesn't necessarily mean that it will happen, and if it does then their occupancy metrics in other systems will suffer and their space will be easier to take.

Also your original concern is somewhat moot since if you're fully utilizing a system's site spawns then you shouldn't have a problem hitting your occupancy metrics. There's no requirement that just the people using a system defend it so there's no requirement that a ton of people be packed into every system, and if we ever hit the point where every system in Player Controlled Null is being fully utilized I'll send the Game Design team a cake in congratulations on doing the impossible.

Just because the ratting index is crazy easy to get to V solo doesn't mean that occupancy is suitable for defending nodes against 30 minute raids. If you have to put out calls to five systems away to form up 20 or 30 people then you aren't going to be able to effectively defend space, and large alliances (I.E. Goons as a classic example) are going to still need vast swathes of land in order to provide for their members.
If the potential occupancy is instead on level of a high sec lvl 4 system, so lets say..... 100 simultaneously. Then not only can you adjust the index so you can't max it solo but V actually means a large number of people working together, but you also have alliances only holding small areas since they don't need 1000 systems for their members.

While it seems unrelated this plays directly into the Entosis link, and into there being room in null for smaller alliances who don't join the big coalitions, since especially those smaller alliances need to be able to pack tightly.
Cade Windstalker
#204 - 2015-04-04 23:03:37 UTC
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
Just because the ratting index is crazy easy to get to V solo doesn't mean that occupancy is suitable for defending nodes against 30 minute raids. If you have to put out calls to five systems away to form up 20 or 30 people then you aren't going to be able to effectively defend space, and large alliances (I.E. Goons as a classic example) are going to still need vast swathes of land in order to provide for their members.
If the potential occupancy is instead on level of a high sec lvl 4 system, so lets say..... 100 simultaneously. Then not only can you adjust the index so you can't max it solo but V actually means a large number of people working together, but you also have alliances only holding small areas since they don't need 1000 systems for their members.

While it seems unrelated this plays directly into the Entosis link, and into there being room in null for smaller alliances who don't join the big coalitions, since especially those smaller alliances need to be able to pack tightly.


Right now it takes a decent sized fleet far less than 30-40 minutes to burn through the first timer on a structure, and if you don't respond to the first timer then you have a time-stamped fight coming up in a few days that you can prepare for if, for whatever reason, you can't respond to someone going around reinforcing your stuff.

I don't think it's reasonable to force high-sec levels of occupancy on Null, nor is it realistic for a single player grinding a few hours a day to be able to maintain occupancy level 5 metrics on a system. Also the current problem of a few alliances controlling huge chunks of un-used space has nothing to do with alliances needing 1000 systems for their members. If you look at the daily activity levels even in Goon space they're not all at 5s. Alliances control vast swaths of space because it's easy to do so and provides a defensive buffer of boredom against attackers.
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#205 - 2015-04-04 23:31:48 UTC
Point is not to require it, but to make it possible in a reasonable way.
Agents aren't the best solution, but a random agent prevents LP farming of only the most valuable LP's, and means it can be done without introducing a new form of PvE, much as a form of PvE which enabled cooperation without forcing it or reducing profits would be great for all areas of space.
Cade Windstalker
#206 - 2015-04-05 04:22:01 UTC
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
Point is not to require it, but to make it possible in a reasonable way.
Agents aren't the best solution, but a random agent prevents LP farming of only the most valuable LP's, and means it can be done without introducing a new form of PvE, much as a form of PvE which enabled cooperation without forcing it or reducing profits would be great for all areas of space.


If people recruit agents from only the most valuable LP stores then you can expect that to push the value of those LP down as a result of increased supply, especially if that manages to become the primary source of income for Null, which seems unlikely given the value of Null sites and anomalies compared to even a Null Sec mission reward and rat bounties.

Plus if done randomly then people would just gravitate to whichever agents give the best rewards or 're-roll' their agents until they got a good one worth keeping.
Xe'Cara'eos
A Big Enough Lever
#207 - 2015-04-05 09:29:18 UTC
Getting a leetle off-topic guys...
Can someone link the original entosis devblog? I can't find it to refer to.....

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.

rsantos
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#208 - 2015-04-05 11:18:43 UTC
Emmy Mnemonic wrote:
rsantos wrote:
The dirty bloblers have won! Hope you all have fun with the new sov laser cyno fitted to your carriers in 10% TiDi!



Well, I agree with you! Entosis-mechanisms gets rid of blobbing to do hit-point damage, but introduces blobbing to control the battlefield when entosising sov-structures. Status quo. And carriers? I can easily see Supers do this - can't be jammed, difficult for smaller groups like yours to kill them, they can ECM-burst both your DPS and logis. And the defenders have all the time in the world, they're not in a hurry.

So, yes, there will be blobbing again. Sadly.

But then blobbing has been the case all the time, entosis or no entosis - to gain control over the battlefield, you will need to blob in one way or another. Killing a ratter - conrol the battlefield by dropping and blob him with SBs, Recons and Black Ops. Small annoying 10-man Swedish pvp-gang in cruisers in Fountain - run away or blob them with Battleships. Usually run away though :-)


Blobbing will always be a winning tactic. Nerfing ship agility will only favor blobbing even more. The entosis link already had pretty bad down sides - no remote assistance - making kitting the only tank option. This change kills that option and does nothing for small fights. It make blobbing the only tanking option.
Nolak Ataru
Worm Holers Anonymous
Hole Control
#209 - 2015-04-05 12:19:15 UTC
INB4 BootDomis, Ishtars, and Pantheon Carrier fleets.
Thane Ansollare
Stay Frosty.
A Band Apart.
#210 - 2015-04-05 12:57:44 UTC
Azure and Argent wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
The powergrid requirements for the T2 version are indeed difficult for frigates and destroyers. The T1 version is a much more viable option for frigates, but yes this mean we would expect ships of cruiser size or higher to have a lot of importance in contested sov warfare.



I'm glad to see you've decided to ignore whatever idiot came up with this line.

Quote:
This also means that we don't want to be using the Entosis Links to intentionally manipulate ship use. We've seen some people suggesting that we restrict Entosis Links to battleships, command ships or capital ships in order to buff those classes. Using the Entosis Link mechanics to artificially skew the meta in that way is not something we are interested in doing.




CCP Fozzie wrote:
Goal #3: Minimize the systemic pressure to bring more people or larger ships than would be required to simply defeat your enemies on the field of battle.


Except if you defeat your enemies on the field of battle with frigates apparently. The other changes would have been fine with out the elevated fitting needs of the T2 module.

If an alliance can't blap an inti they have other problems.

Maybe a better change would be to just remove/decrease MWD bloom bonus's while the module is active. Although with the locking range of frigates I don't think "trollceptors" were ever going to have a huge impact except to those who blanketly dock up whenever there's a neutral in system.
Raphael Celestine
Celestine Inc.
#211 - 2015-04-05 13:56:36 UTC
Thane Ansollare wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Goal #3: Minimize the systemic pressure to bring more people or larger ships than would be required to simply defeat your enemies on the field of battle.


Except if you defeat your enemies on the field of battle with frigates apparently. The other changes would have been fine with out the elevated fitting needs of the T2 module.

If an alliance can't blap an inti they have other problems.

Maybe a better change would be to just remove/decrease MWD bloom bonus's while the module is active. Although with the locking range of frigates I don't think "trollceptors" were ever going to have a huge impact except to those who blanketly dock up whenever there's a neutral in system.

If you actually do defeat your enemies with frigates, then the T1 E-link should be all you need.

I'm inclined to agree that trollceptors wouldn't necessarily have been a major issue, but the major advantage of the T2 mod is the extra range - and it's hard to see what a frigate/destroyer pilot who actually intends to fight would need with a 250km range anyway. A small-ship gang who can't keep a ship within 25km of the target can hardly claim to be 'controlling the grid', so they probably don't deserve to be able to make any capture progress.
Jenshae Chiroptera
#212 - 2015-04-05 17:13:39 UTC  |  Edited by: Jenshae Chiroptera
The overwhelming problem with people saying this is a great idea is that they seem to only be thinking about it in terms of one roam or one battle.
They aren't thinking about this in terms of having a constant stream of small gangs flying through your space.

"OMGADZ lookie thar pappy, we can getz us them SOV space!"
"Yessie Sir, we be taking them SOVs .... but ..... erm .... how are we going to hold onto it for long if they can't?"

i.e. Fozzie Logic is creating griefer paradise.

CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids

Not even once

EVE is becoming shallow and puerile; it will satisfy neither the veteran nor the "WoW" type crowd in the transition.

Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#213 - 2015-04-05 17:36:13 UTC
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:
The overwhelming problem with people saying this is a great idea is that they seem to only be thinking about it in terms of one roam or one battle.
They aren't thinking about this in terms of having a constant stream of small gangs flying through your space.

"OMGADZ lookie thar pappy, we can getz us them SOV space!"
"Yessie Sir, we be taking them SOVs .... but ..... erm .... how are we going to hold onto it for long if they can't?"

i.e. Fozzie Logic is creating griefer paradise.

shaking up sov

op success

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 ?

Cade Windstalker
#214 - 2015-04-05 18:05:31 UTC
rsantos wrote:
Blobbing will always be a winning tactic. Nerfing ship agility will only favor blobbing even more. The entosis link already had pretty bad down sides - no remote assistance - making kitting the only tank option. This change kills that option and does nothing for small fights. It make blobbing the only tanking option.


There's absolutely nothing stopping you from keeping the module offline or even in your cargo bay until you have control of the grid, at which point you drop a Mobile Depot or just refit off a carrier and go about capturing.

Thus the flow of battle to reinforce a structure ends up going along the lines of:


  1. Initial attack by the aggressors. Link is activated and after initial cycle defending alliance is informed their structure is under attack.
  2. Defenders respond and either drop their own links or move to destroy those of the enemy. Depending on ships linking either side may target the other's links or assume them to be bait-tanked and ignore them in favor of more dangerous targets. Either way capture progress stalls while the enemy fleet is on grid.
  3. One side or the other is driven off the grid, the winner resumes ticking down their timer.
  4. 2 and 3 repeat until either the vulnerability period ends or the attacks by the aggressor cease.


The flow around a node would be similar except that there will be little to no initial capture progress as both sides show up expecting a fight to happen.

Of course this is hardly a comprehensive tactical overview and I'm sure others will come up with more and different strategies, but it's not really fair to say that the Entosis system is actually encouraging blobbing more than present systems are. At the very least splitting the fighting over multiple grids forces a fleet to split up, no matter how big of a blob they have.

Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:
The overwhelming problem with people saying this is a great idea is that they seem to only be thinking about it in terms of one roam or one battle.
They aren't thinking about this in terms of having a constant stream of small gangs flying through your space.

"OMGADZ lookie thar pappy, we can getz us them SOV space!"
"Yessie Sir, we be taking them SOVs .... but ..... erm .... how are we going to hold onto it for long if they can't?"

i.e. Fozzie Logic is creating griefer paradise.


Hence the massive downsides to the Entosis link. If you have decently high occupancy metrics that griefer roam is never going to even reinforce anything, but if they try you'll have a small gang to chase around your space and PvP with, one that has at least one member carrying a 1 million kg paper weight, and there's nothing wrong with that. It's only 4 hours ever day anyways, where as right now there's nothing stopping people from flitting around in sniper fits shooting POSes or structures to achieve roughly the same effect.
Nolak Ataru
Worm Holers Anonymous
Hole Control
#215 - 2015-04-06 12:24:41 UTC
Took another system last night with domis, harpies, celestis, and dread fleets. Other side was a no-show Post-Entosis sov will be nothing but Ishtars and Domis and Huginns and Lokis. Drop drones + assist, turn on entosis, go play DOTA2. I don't understand why CCP can't see this.
Kagura Nikon
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#216 - 2015-04-06 14:19:07 UTC
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:
The overwhelming problem with people saying this is a great idea is that they seem to only be thinking about it in terms of one roam or one battle.
They aren't thinking about this in terms of having a constant stream of small gangs flying through your space.

"OMGADZ lookie thar pappy, we can getz us them SOV space!"
"Yessie Sir, we be taking them SOVs .... but ..... erm .... how are we going to hold onto it for long if they can't?"

i.e. Fozzie Logic is creating griefer paradise.




you mena.. Exaclty like eve should be?

"If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"

Kagura Nikon
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#217 - 2015-04-06 14:21:30 UTC
Nolak Ataru wrote:
Took another system last night with domis, harpies, celestis, and dread fleets. Other side was a no-show Post-Entosis sov will be nothing but Ishtars and Domis and Huginns and Lokis. Drop drones + assist, turn on entosis, go play DOTA2. I don't understand why CCP can't see this.



because they can read their own proposal. For god sake. at least TRY. The defending side can ALWAYSD escalate back and they can cancel thwe take over with their OWN entosis link, than you need to defeat the defending fleet, and things jsut faslty escalate the same way as now.

The main difference is that this will only happens when people LIVE in a system. If the system is abandoned, there will be no escalation.

"If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"

Kagura Nikon
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#218 - 2015-04-06 14:25:22 UTC
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:
I don't see any reason to make capital ships have a longer duration. Sure, they're more difficult to shoot down, but they're also more difficult to get into position and a lot more valuable of a target. It's not like shooting a linking subcap is going to reset the timer for that side, in fact it likely won't even stop their timer since many forces will use multiple entosis links on a single structure.

Yes, an entire fleet of dreadnoughts and carriers will easily win a link. Is that a bad thing? I say we should have more reasons to put capital ships in the line of fire, not less.



because otherwise things will develop into suicide triage drops to take the entosis effect on. You cannot realistically take out a surprise triage carrier that just cynoed in with an entosis before it gets a large effect.

How much it needs to be slower is something to e discussed, but that some differences must exist, I think there is no doubt abou t that.

"If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"

davet517
Raata Invicti
#219 - 2015-04-06 14:49:00 UTC
So, in order to alter the current "N+1" state of affairs you are creating a mechanic where you light up the primary for the opposing side and make it so that they can't be repped, can't warp, and dock, and are just about guaranteed to be slower than whatever is chasing them. This certainly won't lead to power blocs spamming thousands of entosis links to overwhelm any attacker's ability to clear them from the field.

I had to laugh when I watched Fozzie's interview where he said they're trying to avoid introducing changes where they know what the result will be. I guess that's easier to do for some people than it is for others.

The net result is that it's a nerf to renting. Renters docking up to avoid roaming gangs will result in rental regions being lit up with timers constantly, and landlords chasing their tails trying to cover them all. Precious moons will still be guarded by Super-Blobs.

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
#220 - 2015-04-06 15:08:57 UTC
Nolak Ataru wrote:
Took another system last night with domis, harpies, celestis, and dread fleets. Other side was a no-show Post-Entosis sov will be nothing but Ishtars and Domis and Huginns and Lokis. Drop drones + assist, turn on entosis, go play DOTA2. I don't understand why CCP can't see this.


Thats why I am hoping for small to xl e-links and small to xl capture annoms that are tied to occupied indexes. That way if you want to caputre a system that is not being used you can do it with frigs... but if you want to capture the capital system of a large alliance you will have to bring the big guns and thus put them up for potential loss... which hopefully will be the spark for large scale fights like b-r (one of the great things about b-r was it took place over several systems this if done well could be a great template for not only PR but future fights for sov in general)

There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... CCP Goliath wrote:

Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.