These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Auduin Samson
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#241 - 2015-04-07 04:51:43 UTC
Apologies if this has been answered, but I didn't see it. What will the notification system be if your alliance structures are being sov-lazor'd? I really like what has been done so far, but it would be nice to have an easy way to distinguish an afk cloaky camper from an attempt at your sov. Perhaps an automated alliance message that says "Structure [x] in system [y] is under attack!", or at the very least a message in local saying that someone is attempting to take your sov. Pipe systems especially grow pretty used to the occasional red flying through, and having to keep someone spending their game time guarding the iHubs around the clock to distinguish which ones are actual threats sounds awful.
Chen Chillin
Stella Novus Invictus
#242 - 2015-04-07 06:38:58 UTC
Cade Windstalker wrote:
Valtaric wrote:
Will it be possible to MJD with an entosis link active?


This was actually answered in the previous thread. Yes, but if you lose lock your cycle keeps going with all associated penalties for no capture progress (and a MJD breaks all of your current target locks when it successfully goes off)



Actually i do not believe so... point 3 of the original concept says no warp or jump while active..... even tho it's micro.. its still a jump.
Xe'Cara'eos
A Big Enough Lever
#243 - 2015-04-07 08:57:23 UTC
Gyges Skyeye wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:

  • The first cycle of the module is always a "warmup cycle" and has no impact. If you lose lock or the module is disabled for any reason, you'll need to go through that warmup cycle again before you can continue exerting any influence over the structure


  • From a user interface standpoint, can we get some clarity added to the game client on this. Modules all have a green cycle timer for ON, and a red cycle timer for OFF/SHUTTING DOWN. Something like a yellow or orange cycle timer for WARMING UP would probably suffice. It would let us more accurately know what the status of our personal entosis link is.

    Thanks


    I think this is a sensible idea,

    - orange for warm-up cycle
    - green for actively capping/preventing cap
    - red for an interrupted cycle (eg you lost lock halfway through, or decided to turn it off)#

    also, if you turn your link off, does it continue capturing until the cycle ends (assuming no-one screws with your target lock)?

    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.

    Kagura Nikon
    Native Freshfood
    Minmatar Republic
    #244 - 2015-04-07 11:22:15 UTC
    MeBiatch wrote:
    Kagura Nikon wrote:
    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.


    well no escalation for the initial reinforce... but there will be for the actual capture event.



    But since the real capture event will be spread all over the constellation (for the thigns tha seriously matter at least) that measn we will have a much more interesting scenario where several small and medium fleets fight each other and maybe two large fleets duke out at one point while this struggle develops.

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

    Aya Nova
    Bearded BattleBears
    #245 - 2015-04-07 12:16:28 UTC  |  Edited by: Aya Nova
    The range should involve skill levels. Something like:

    T1 - 20km + 10% per skill level of Infomorph Psychology (22-40km at usable skill levels)
    T2 - 150km + 10% per skill level of Infomorph Psychology (210-235km at usable skill levels)
    Jenshae Chiroptera
    #246 - 2015-04-07 12:32:16 UTC
    Justin Cody wrote:
    zerg rush for sov!
    +1
    I think it is more likely "zerg rush for tears"

    Why try hold SOV when you can just keep making the SOV defenders crazy from your NPC base of operations?

    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.

    Nolak Ataru
    Worm Holers Anonymous
    Hole Control
    #247 - 2015-04-07 14:20:06 UTC
    Cade Windstalker wrote:
    At which point they've either left the grid alone (yay) or are no longer AFK?
    Either way, still not an issue with the Entosis mechanics.

    1) Carriers can carry, what, 80km3 of drones? That's 3200 sentries. Pantheon carriers don't use DCUs, so they only deploy 10 at a time. The reason bombs were not taken seriously as a counter for the Pantheon fleets is because the Archons can deploy 320 waves of sentries. Good luck getting 7 bombers to drop 320 bombs on an Archon fleet.
    2) Except that after a bomb wave, the domis can just drop sentries again and go back to DOTA 2, or just warp back on grid. Bombers are a decent weapons system but they shine when you have bubbles or something else keeping the fleet on-grid. With Entosis sov, the domis can warp off while the Pantheons stay behind. And if they have Aeon support, they'll just laugh whenever someone tries to bomb them, even with the new capital bomb.
    Cade Windstalker
    #248 - 2015-04-07 19:39:31 UTC  |  Edited by: Cade Windstalker
    Auduin Samson wrote:
    Apologies if this has been answered, but I didn't see it. What will the notification system be if your alliance structures are being sov-lazor'd? I really like what has been done so far, but it would be nice to have an easy way to distinguish an afk cloaky camper from an attempt at your sov. Perhaps an automated alliance message that says "Structure [x] in system [y] is under attack!", or at the very least a message in local saying that someone is attempting to take your sov. Pipe systems especially grow pretty used to the occasional red flying through, and having to keep someone spending their game time guarding the iHubs around the clock to distinguish which ones are actual threats sounds awful.


    It's in the original dev blog actually. Yes, an alliance wide Eve Mail is sent out when one of your structures is under attack at the moment when the first warmup cycle finishes on a structure.

    Chen Chillin wrote:
    Actually i do not believe so... point 3 of the original concept says no warp or jump while active..... even tho it's micro.. its still a jump.


    Nope, it's legal just like the MWD. Specified in this post by Fozzie in the old thread. (though someone corrected me on a MJD breaking target locks, as long as the start and end point are in lock range you won't loose lock)

    Aya Nova wrote:
    The range should involve skill levels. Something like:

    T1 - 20km + 10% per skill level of Infomorph Psychology (22-40km at usable skill levels)
    T2 - 150km + 10% per skill level of Infomorph Psychology (210-235km at usable skill levels)


    Why? What does this add to gameplay besides another barrier to effective use of the module? Part of the point here is to remove barriers to entry for Sov Warfare and taking Sov.



    Nolak, fair points but I feel this is getting off topic and no longer pertains to the discussion at hand.
    Iroquoiss Pliskin
    9B30FF Labs
    #249 - 2015-04-07 20:00:16 UTC
    Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:
    Justin Cody wrote:
    zerg rush for sov!
    +1
    I think it is more likely "zerg rush for tears"

    Why try hold SOV when you can just keep making the SOV defenders crazy from your NPC base of operations?


    Clog the pipes around Stain and Curse, and harvest said elite NPC pvpers' tears. Smile
    Jenshae Chiroptera
    #250 - 2015-04-08 02:42:11 UTC
    Iroquoiss Pliskin wrote:
    Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:
    Justin Cody wrote:
    zerg rush for sov!
    +1
    I think it is more likely "zerg rush for tears"

    Why try hold SOV when you can just keep making the SOV defenders crazy from your NPC base of operations?
    Clog the pipes around Stain and Curse, and harvest said elite NPC pvpers' tears. Smile
    Suddenly worm holes.
    (That will be the best source of fun living in a WH. "We have a link to Null Sec? Whoopie! Grab that Entosis wand, let's go annoy someone!")

    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.

    Iroquoiss Pliskin
    9B30FF Labs
    #251 - 2015-04-08 04:55:35 UTC
    Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:
    Iroquoiss Pliskin wrote:
    Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:
    Justin Cody wrote:
    zerg rush for sov!
    +1
    I think it is more likely "zerg rush for tears"

    Why try hold SOV when you can just keep making the SOV defenders crazy from your NPC base of operations?
    Clog the pipes around Stain and Curse, and harvest said elite NPC pvpers' tears. Smile
    Suddenly worm holes.
    (That will be the best source of fun living in a WH. "We have a link to Null Sec? Whoopie! Grab that Entosis wand, let's go annoy someone!")


    Too much ¬effort¬ and "warm up" to be an effective bear poking tactic. Blink
    Aya Nova
    Bearded BattleBears
    #252 - 2015-04-08 07:15:23 UTC
    Cade Windstalker wrote:
    Aya Nova wrote:
    The range should involve skill levels. Something like:

    T1 - 20km + 10% per skill level of Infomorph Psychology (22-40km at usable skill levels)
    T2 - 150km + 10% per skill level of Infomorph Psychology (210-235km at usable skill levels)


    Why? What does this add to gameplay besides another barrier to effective use of the module? Part of the point here is to remove barriers to entry for Sov Warfare and taking Sov.


    The barrier of entry is already there due to the minimum skill requirement to use. The benefit to gameplay is it makes things slightly less predictable and adds a slight difference between those who just meet minimum requirements and those who choose to train further.

    It's one of the core mechanics of how items work in EVE, and almost every single item/ship can be improved in some way if one trains beyond the minimum requirements.

    On this module, a range bonus is useful, without becoming mandatory, in the way that a cycle time reduction bonus would be.
    Monasucks
    BLACK SQUADRON.
    The Bastion
    #253 - 2015-04-08 09:55:16 UTC
    Add much more Stront - So it's a decicion on a small ship to either take ammo or stront..
    But I'm still against those sov changes!

    Monasucks Tumblr

    Twitter

    "A good worker is a live worker. Free to live - and work! A bad worker is a dead worker; and vice versa. Don't be a bad worker; bad workers are slaves, and dead."

    Nevyn Auscent
    Broke Sauce
    #254 - 2015-04-08 10:09:18 UTC
    Aya Nova wrote:

    The barrier of entry is already there due to the minimum skill requirement to use. The benefit to gameplay is it makes things slightly less predictable and adds a slight difference between those who just meet minimum requirements and those who choose to train further.

    It's one of the core mechanics of how items work in EVE, and almost every single item/ship can be improved in some way if one trains beyond the minimum requirements.

    On this module, a range bonus is useful, without becoming mandatory, in the way that a cycle time reduction bonus would be.

    It also is a stealth doubling of range for the T1 module, which lets trollceptors and similar fits actually kite while using it as well, so yea nah.
    Kagura Nikon
    Native Freshfood
    Minmatar Republic
    #255 - 2015-04-08 10:50:10 UTC
    Monasucks wrote:
    Add much more Stront - So it's a decicion on a small ship to either take ammo or stront..
    But I'm still against those sov changes!



    NEed to be careful or you unbalance things. If you need too much stront, then suddenly only amarr ships can do something...

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

    Xe'Cara'eos
    A Big Enough Lever
    #256 - 2015-04-08 11:00:41 UTC  |  Edited by: Xe'Cara'eos
    Nevyn Auscent wrote:
    Aya Nova wrote:

    The barrier of entry is already there due to the minimum skill requirement to use. The benefit to gameplay is it makes things slightly less predictable and adds a slight difference between those who just meet minimum requirements and those who choose to train further.

    It's one of the core mechanics of how items work in EVE, and almost every single item/ship can be improved in some way if one trains beyond the minimum requirements.

    On this module, a range bonus is useful, without becoming mandatory, in the way that a cycle time reduction bonus would be.

    It also is a stealth doubling of range for the T1 module, which lets trollceptors and similar fits actually kite while using it as well, so yea nah.


    how many ships could nail a troll-ceptor at 30km? hmmmmm, lemme think, anything cruiser sized and upwards using long-range weapons, t3d's in sniper mode with rangey weapons, any T1 desty with rangey weapons, a griffin could jam it, a hyena could web it, and a sentinel could neut it dry..... I don't have an issue with this, if the defending side isn't willing to risk a t1 desty (perhaps 2) to drive off/disrupt a troll-ceptor, they deserve to lose sov, and it's no big issue to place 4 different racial T1 desties in each system you hold sov

    EDIT:
    my first mission running BC - 720mm arty cane - short range ammo (fusion, EMP, phased plasma) would probably one-shot a troll-ceptor

    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.

    Kagura Nikon
    Native Freshfood
    Minmatar Republic
    #257 - 2015-04-08 15:53:59 UTC
    Xe'Cara'eos wrote:
    Nevyn Auscent wrote:
    Aya Nova wrote:

    The barrier of entry is already there due to the minimum skill requirement to use. The benefit to gameplay is it makes things slightly less predictable and adds a slight difference between those who just meet minimum requirements and those who choose to train further.

    It's one of the core mechanics of how items work in EVE, and almost every single item/ship can be improved in some way if one trains beyond the minimum requirements.

    On this module, a range bonus is useful, without becoming mandatory, in the way that a cycle time reduction bonus would be.

    It also is a stealth doubling of range for the T1 module, which lets trollceptors and similar fits actually kite while using it as well, so yea nah.


    how many ships could nail a troll-ceptor at 30km? hmmmmm, lemme think, anything cruiser sized and upwards using long-range weapons, t3d's in sniper mode with rangey weapons, any T1 desty with rangey weapons, a griffin could jam it, a hyena could web it, and a sentinel could neut it dry..... I don't have an issue with this, if the defending side isn't willing to risk a t1 desty (perhaps 2) to drive off/disrupt a troll-ceptor, they deserve to lose sov, and it's no big issue to place 4 different racial T1 desties in each system you hold sov

    EDIT:
    my first mission running BC - 720mm arty cane - short range ammo (fusion, EMP, phased plasma) would probably one-shot a troll-ceptor



    the real list is massive. Rapier, huggin, ashimmu, hyena etc.. several thingsd make troll ceptors on that range a non issue.

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

    Cade Windstalker
    #258 - 2015-04-08 16:04:30 UTC
    Aya Nova wrote:
    The barrier of entry is already there due to the minimum skill requirement to use. The benefit to gameplay is it makes things slightly less predictable and adds a slight difference between those who just meet minimum requirements and those who choose to train further.

    It's one of the core mechanics of how items work in EVE, and almost every single item/ship can be improved in some way if one trains beyond the minimum requirements.

    On this module, a range bonus is useful, without becoming mandatory, in the way that a cycle time reduction bonus would be.


    Infomorph Psychology is a very basic skill that almost everyone trains to at least level 1, and Level 4 is at worst a less than 3 day train with no implants and a bad remap.

    Also, while improvement of capability through skills is certainly one of the core features of Eve it's by no means universal. Every item has stats that can't be improved through training, and there is a small but significant number of items that don't offer any method of improvement. In-fact, one of the most iconic items in the game doesn't, the Invulnerability Field. There is no skill that affects any characteristic of that module other than Thermodynamics for overheating.

    There's also a major difference in "skills required to fit the module" and "skills required to use the module effectively" in terms of a barrier to entry. If the player-base decides that the module is only really useful for a fleet comp with the relevant skills at 5 then anyone without that requirement can't participate with those players (probably a substantial portion of the player-base).

    Just making things 'slightly less predictable' isn't a particularly good reason to add advancement to these modules outside of their tiers. There's already enough unpredictable about an engagement between fleets, and it's extremely likely that players will just determine what the best approach is and everyone will use that, making it predictable.
    Jenshae Chiroptera
    #259 - 2015-04-08 19:12:27 UTC
    Xe'Cara'eos wrote:
    how many ships could nail a troll-ceptor at 30km?
    First you have to get around the structure to them.

    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.

    Iroquoiss Pliskin
    9B30FF Labs
    #260 - 2015-04-08 19:21:57 UTC  |  Edited by: Iroquoiss Pliskin
    Kagura Nikon wrote:
    Monasucks wrote:
    Add much more Stront - So it's a decicion on a small ship to either take ammo or stront..
    But I'm still against those sov changes!



    NEed to be careful or you unbalance things. If you need too much stront, then suddenly only amarr ships can do something...


    AMARR VICTOR! Pirate

    I'll glance over cargo bay volumes for most shiptypes of all races in a sec.

    Edit:

    AF: Two frigates stand out - Hawk @ 300 m3 Shocked and Vengeance 210 m3; most are around 135 m3.
    BC: Gnosis has 900 m3, Talos 600 m3, Tornado 535 m3; the rest 350-475 m3.
    BS: Averages out to 600 m3; Hyperion and Megathron at 675 m3. All pirate faction Battleships are 665 m3, Nestor 700 m3. (ง ͠° ͟ل͜ ͡°)ง
    Cruisers: All over the place with 300-480 m3.
    T1 Destroyers: 300-450 m3.
    HACs: Avg 450 m3 with Sac and Cerberus @ 615/650 m3, and fagetship @ 560 m3.
    Ceptors: Avg 90 m3.
    Dictors: 400 m3.
    Marauders: 1100 m3. (° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °)
    Recons: 315 m3.
    Stealth bombers: 260-ish m3.
    T3: Tengu & Legion @ 430 / 300 m3 AFAIR.

    T3Ds: Confessor 400 m3, Sviipul 430 m3. ᕦ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)ᕤ