These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Raphael Celestine
Celestine Inc.
#281 - 2015-04-09 14:41:11 UTC
Nolak Ataru wrote:
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
And? If you want to push that much into a system/constellation you should win, and obviously you care about that location.
You are trying to argue that superior numbers of heavy fleets shouldn't win.
The point of the Entosis link is that you don't have to escalate that high just to structure grind, not that you can't.

Except that they *will* escalate 100% of the time. For the last five blockade bashes I was on, we moved into position at least a half-hour early with Boot Domis and Napocs and parked our fleets on each gate, with a Harpy fleet patrolling outside and a supercap fleet inside ready to backup whichever Domi fleet got attacked. The Harpies dealt with anything sub-BC, the Domis dropped their drones and went to watch football, and the supercaps did the structure grind. What makes anyone here think that this combined force will not continue to happen? Combined arms has been military tactics since donkeys years, and it used to be the thing in EVE as well until carriers became so prevalent. CCP's wishing themselves back before capital proliferation, back to when a titan kill was talked about for the rest of the month. Unfortunately, it won't work.

e: And we pushed so much into a system that Darkness / Kadeshi didn't dare attempt to contest us.

So... what exactly is the problem with that scenario?

If you can field a fleet that your opponents can't outfight or outmanoeuvre, you deserve to win the battle. If you've got enough pilots and resources that you can consistently field a fleet that powerful for every fight, then you win the war. The entosis link mechanics as written don't change any of that, except to make 'outmanoeuvre them' a (potentially) viable strategy by adding multiple targets spread out over the whole constellation. As far as I can see, that means that they're are working as intended.

Now, if you're saying that the first-on-grid advantage makes it too easy to create the aforementioned unbeatable defense, I'd probably agree with you ... but it seems to me that the problem is with the general combat mechanics, not the entosis link specifically.

In fact, I'd argue that it's improving the situation. Not necessarily fixing it entirely, but it at least adds two new options for making carrier-backed heavy fleets less effective: outflank the fleet with mobile units (BLOPs and covert cynos?), and capture nodes elsewhere in the constellation, and/or pick off the entosis-equipped ships while they're unable to be repped to slow down the enemy's capture progress.
Nolak Ataru
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#282 - 2015-04-09 15:35:09 UTC
The problem is that it will discourage any form of confrontation. Go up to any FC and ask him if he'll jump into a system where the defenders are from an alliance known to utilize sentries to their fullest extend, has the numbers to easily put 700 people into a system on a whim, and has supercapital support in-system.

CCP wanted to make Entosis sov encourage battles, but it's going to be similar to "jam yesterday, jam today, and damned if there wont be jam tomorrow". Oh sure, there's going to be some systems changing hands, but those will be either from smaller alliances as they consolidate and possibly move around, but larger coalitions like GSF can quickly mobilize defense fleets and use our extensive JB network and use titan bridges to run around and swat flies. I'm not saying this won't prevent new alliances from forming, but I am saying they're going to live under the constant thread of GSF or N3 or whoever rolling through one day and perma-camping the system till it breaks 24/7.
Tejoe Nightstar
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#283 - 2015-04-09 16:10:21 UTC
Nolak Ataru wrote:
The problem is that it will discourage any form of confrontation. Go up to any FC and ask him if he'll jump into a system where the defenders are from an alliance known to utilize sentries to their fullest extend, has the numbers to easily put 700 people into a system on a whim, and has supercapital support in-system.

CCP wanted to make Entosis sov encourage battles, but it's going to be similar to "jam yesterday, jam today, and damned if there wont be jam tomorrow". Oh sure, there's going to be some systems changing hands, but those will be either from smaller alliances as they consolidate and possibly move around, but larger coalitions like GSF can quickly mobilize defense fleets and use our extensive JB network and use titan bridges to run around and swat flies. I'm not saying this won't prevent new alliances from forming, but I am saying they're going to live under the constant thread of GSF or N3 or whoever rolling through one day and perma-camping the system till it breaks 24/7.


Two options to combat that:
1) The universe isn't big enough. Add six to eight new regions that need to explored/found through a deep probe like activiity, possibly augmented by Observatory Arrays. The new regions would be linked through player built gates (destructible) other than one or two NPC outposts with a link of NPC built gates (indestructible) to NPC space.

2) Size based primetime. If a corp/alliance is at 500 or less, its prime time will be 4 hours. It will up from there maxing out at 8 hours for corp/alliances that are over 20,000. Or reduce the size based max to 6 hours but add 1 hour if there are any war-decs on them and add 1½ hours if they have war-decced someone else.
SFM Hobb3s
Perkone
Caldari State
#284 - 2015-04-09 16:58:11 UTC
Nolak Ataru wrote:
The problem is that it will discourage any form of confrontation. Go up to any FC and ask him if he'll jump into a system where the defenders are from an alliance known to utilize sentries to their fullest extend, has the numbers to easily put 700 people into a system on a whim, and has supercapital support in-system.

CCP wanted to make Entosis sov encourage battles, but it's going to be similar to "jam yesterday, jam today, and damned if there wont be jam tomorrow". Oh sure, there's going to be some systems changing hands, but those will be either from smaller alliances as they consolidate and possibly move around, but larger coalitions like GSF can quickly mobilize defense fleets and use our extensive JB network and use titan bridges to run around and swat flies. I'm not saying this won't prevent new alliances from forming, but I am saying they're going to live under the constant thread of GSF or N3 or whoever rolling through one day and perma-camping the system till it breaks 24/7.



If CCP's plan works and the new mechanics force a spread of defensive fleet constellation-wide (and further because why would you just hit one constellation?), then I think that this certainly will encourage some really nice battles. It's going to turn entities like Goons into the content-delivering foes we want them to be....or they can eat their 'weaponized boredom' while stuff gets flipped.
HandelsPharmi
Pharmi on CharBazaar
#285 - 2015-04-09 17:03:35 UTC
They will give us a new tool and it is our job to use this tool and maybe there will be the need to balance this new Sov system. Maybe it will work like they have planned it now. Give it time, and enjoy it. I am pretty interested in the new mechanics and additionally they are planning to make structures destructible.

Sure, 700 players could blob and play laggy PvP in one system, but what happens meanwhile in the other ENEMY home systems far far away?
Nolak Ataru
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#286 - 2015-04-09 17:24:22 UTC
Tejoe Nightstar wrote:
Two options to combat that:
1) The universe isn't big enough. Add six to eight new regions that need to explored/found through a deep probe like activiity, possibly augmented by Observatory Arrays. The new regions would be linked through player built gates (destructible) other than one or two NPC outposts with a link of NPC built gates (indestructible) to NPC space.

2) Size based primetime. If a corp/alliance is at 500 or less, its prime time will be 4 hours. It will up from there maxing out at 8 hours for corp/alliances that are over 20,000. Or reduce the size based max to 6 hours but add 1 hour if there are any war-decs on them and add 1½ hours if they have war-decced someone else.


1) There are entire constellations of EVE that's completely devoid of players right now. Balance the rats, loot, and anoms, and people will spread out more.

2) The CFC spans the entire worldwide TZ in one way or another. The only way I see to take a system (for a day) from the CFC under FozzieSov is to wait until AU TZ, just after DT if needed, and pick off a system before anyone can form a response fleet. But then, you get to witness alarm-clock ops in action when the CFC decides they really want that system back.
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#287 - 2015-04-09 18:09:41 UTC
HandelsPharmi wrote:
They will give us a new tool and it is our job to use this tool and maybe there will be the need to balance this new Sov system. Maybe it will work like they have planned it now. Give it time, and enjoy it. I am pretty interested in the new mechanics and additionally they are planning to make structures destructible.

Sure, 700 players could blob and play laggy PvP in one system, but what happens meanwhile in the other ENEMY home systems far far away?

There's probably another 700 players blobbing and playing laggy "PvP" in that system as well.

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 ?

Varyah
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#288 - 2015-04-09 23:44:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Varyah
I'd imagine this was already mentioned. I didn't read the 15 pages.

Why the restriction on remote assist?

I don't quite see a reason to activate the entosis link before the enemy is wiped of the grid?

As attacker you have to think about how many entosis-ships you are bringing, too few and you might lose them all and gained probably nothing. If you try to actively use entosis throughout the fight the entosis ships are easy pickings without remote reps and probably explode right away. Why make your ships vulnerable if you are fighting for control?

As defender you have the advantage that you have shorter supply routes and can reship in entosis-ships faster thus the attacker will loose in a perfectly balanced fight. But wouldn't that mean nobody will even bother to bring their entosis-ships on grid before the fight is won?

Am I missing something?

If it is control of the grid you want to measure, why does the method of measuring control entail reducing the strength of your fleet (vulnerable entosis-ship) which means less control? (I know quantum mechanics and measurement means influencing the state. But this is not quantum mechanics.)

If you want to avoid deadlocks with this restriction I am sure there are better ways.
Cade Windstalker
#289 - 2015-04-10 06:24:05 UTC
Varyah wrote:
I'd imagine this was already mentioned. I didn't read the 15 pages.

Why the restriction on remote assist?

I don't quite see a reason to activate the entosis link before the enemy is wiped of the grid?

As attacker you have to think about how many entosis-ships you are bringing, too few and you might lose them all and gained probably nothing. If you try to actively use entosis throughout the fight the entosis ships are easy pickings without remote reps and probably explode right away. Why make your ships vulnerable if you are fighting for control?

As defender you have the advantage that you have shorter supply routes and can reship in entosis-ships faster thus the attacker will loose in a perfectly balanced fight. But wouldn't that mean nobody will even bother to bring their entosis-ships on grid before the fight is won?

Am I missing something?

If it is control of the grid you want to measure, why does the method of measuring control entail reducing the strength of your fleet (vulnerable entosis-ship) which means less control? (I know quantum mechanics and measurement means influencing the state. But this is not quantum mechanics.)

If you want to avoid deadlocks with this restriction I am sure there are better ways.


I think you've more or less hit the nail on the head here. As CCP said, the point is to force the side that's winning the Entosis contest to control the grid, and keeping a ship on grid and running a Link unsupported for a period of time with no enemy Entosis is a fairly good measure of controlling the grid here.
Yun Kuai
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#290 - 2015-04-10 09:41:46 UTC
Cade Windstalker wrote:
Varyah wrote:
I'd imagine this was already mentioned. I didn't read the 15 pages.

Why the restriction on remote assist?

I don't quite see a reason to activate the entosis link before the enemy is wiped of the grid?

As attacker you have to think about how many entosis-ships you are bringing, too few and you might lose them all and gained probably nothing. If you try to actively use entosis throughout the fight the entosis ships are easy pickings without remote reps and probably explode right away. Why make your ships vulnerable if you are fighting for control?

As defender you have the advantage that you have shorter supply routes and can reship in entosis-ships faster thus the attacker will loose in a perfectly balanced fight. But wouldn't that mean nobody will even bother to bring their entosis-ships on grid before the fight is won?

Am I missing something?

If it is control of the grid you want to measure, why does the method of measuring control entail reducing the strength of your fleet (vulnerable entosis-ship) which means less control? (I know quantum mechanics and measurement means influencing the state. But this is not quantum mechanics.)

If you want to avoid deadlocks with this restriction I am sure there are better ways.


I think you've more or less hit the nail on the head here. As CCP said, the point is to force the side that's winning the Entosis contest to control the grid, and keeping a ship on grid and running a Link unsupported for a period of time with no enemy Entosis is a fairly good measure of controlling the grid here.



Think of it like this. You run the other fleet off grid, but they leave a scout on grid and see that some of the ships have started activating the entosis link. The defenders then switch into a) bombers b) Sniper ABCs c) Sniper HACs d) CODE gank cats e) gank comets f) DERPTRONS! etc and proceed to gank all of the entosis linking ships because they're stuck on grid and can't receive reps.

You hold the grid, but the defenders still have every chance to make you not be able to capture the node. That's exactly why remote reps can't be used because the give the defender a chance even thought you have thousands of ships all set up with sentries out. Now if you start using your titans to capture the node....well lets just hope PL/other Super Cap entity gets wind and is interested.

--------------------------------------------------------::::::::::::--:::-----:::---::::::::::::--------------:::----------:::----:::---:::----------------------:::::::-------:::---:::----::::::-------------------:::-----------:::--:::----:::---------------------::::::::::::----:::::::----:::::::::::::-------

Kagura Nikon
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#291 - 2015-04-10 10:26:44 UTC
Yun Kuai wrote:
Cade Windstalker wrote:
Varyah wrote:
I'd imagine this was already mentioned. I didn't read the 15 pages.

Why the restriction on remote assist?

I don't quite see a reason to activate the entosis link before the enemy is wiped of the grid?

As attacker you have to think about how many entosis-ships you are bringing, too few and you might lose them all and gained probably nothing. If you try to actively use entosis throughout the fight the entosis ships are easy pickings without remote reps and probably explode right away. Why make your ships vulnerable if you are fighting for control?

As defender you have the advantage that you have shorter supply routes and can reship in entosis-ships faster thus the attacker will loose in a perfectly balanced fight. But wouldn't that mean nobody will even bother to bring their entosis-ships on grid before the fight is won?

Am I missing something?

If it is control of the grid you want to measure, why does the method of measuring control entail reducing the strength of your fleet (vulnerable entosis-ship) which means less control? (I know quantum mechanics and measurement means influencing the state. But this is not quantum mechanics.)

If you want to avoid deadlocks with this restriction I am sure there are better ways.


I think you've more or less hit the nail on the head here. As CCP said, the point is to force the side that's winning the Entosis contest to control the grid, and keeping a ship on grid and running a Link unsupported for a period of time with no enemy Entosis is a fairly good measure of controlling the grid here.



Think of it like this. You run the other fleet off grid, but they leave a scout on grid and see that some of the ships have started activating the entosis link. The defenders then switch into a) bombers b) Sniper ABCs c) Sniper HACs d) CODE gank cats e) gank comets f) DERPTRONS! etc and proceed to gank all of the entosis linking ships because they're stuck on grid and can't receive reps.

You hold the grid, but the defenders still have every chance to make you not be able to capture the node. That's exactly why remote reps can't be used because the give the defender a chance even thought you have thousands of ships all set up with sentries out. Now if you start using your titans to capture the node....well lets just hope PL/other Super Cap entity gets wind and is interested.



You can deal partly with that using bubbles and probing the fleet just offgrid and landing on them.

Sometimes whatyou describe will happen anyway. But if you do not nerf the ship with the entosis link, you will degenerate in exaclty the same fights we have today... or even worse... 1 T3 ship FULL TANK mode , and 50 logis.. and that scenario will become the standard battering ram.

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

Kagura Nikon
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#292 - 2015-04-10 10:27:50 UTC
Varyah wrote:
I'd imagine this was already mentioned. I didn't read the 15 pages.

Why the restriction on remote assist?

I don't quite see a reason to activate the entosis link before the enemy is wiped of the grid?

As attacker you have to think about how many entosis-ships you are bringing, too few and you might lose them all and gained probably nothing. If you try to actively use entosis throughout the fight the entosis ships are easy pickings without remote reps and probably explode right away. Why make your ships vulnerable if you are fighting for control?

As defender you have the advantage that you have shorter supply routes and can reship in entosis-ships faster thus the attacker will loose in a perfectly balanced fight. But wouldn't that mean nobody will even bother to bring their entosis-ships on grid before the fight is won?

Am I missing something?

If it is control of the grid you want to measure, why does the method of measuring control entail reducing the strength of your fleet (vulnerable entosis-ship) which means less control? (I know quantum mechanics and measurement means influencing the state. But this is not quantum mechanics.)

If you want to avoid deadlocks with this restriction I am sure there are better ways.



because otherwise you will have fleets of 1 t3 and 50 logis ignoring the defenders and simply drilling trough the capture points.

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

Nolak Ataru
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#293 - 2015-04-10 12:24:12 UTC
Kagura Nikon wrote:
because otherwise you will have fleets of 1 t3 and 50 logis ignoring the defenders and simply drilling trough the capture points.

What is "Coordinated Alpha Strike" for 800, Alex?
Royally
Weird Wanderers
#294 - 2015-04-10 12:43:45 UTC  |  Edited by: Royally
I think GSF pilots are too confident in their ability to hold onto all of their space because "numbers and organization".
Sure, I'm 100% certain that the absolutely critical areas will receive adequate coverage, but it'll be impossible to hold onto all the outlying regions when the entrance bar gets lowered this much.

Its basicly a case of having a far shorter "warmup" phase prior to flipping a system here and there. I'm certain the CFC could deploy 5 or 6 full fleets if they have to, but that wont be enough when you have 10 to 15 flies swatting at sov in 7 different constellations.
They could be engaged ofcourse, but unless one chooses to concentrate on one or two groups, they wont be horribly outblobbed anywhere.

That is why I think the pessimistic fozziesov predictions made in here are bogus.

The most powerful fleet will still win, true. The side that comes early and prepares blockades on all relevant gates in an area will also enjoy a distinct advantage.
But the entire point of fozziesov is that the attacker can decide to just ignore the area they were going to attack and where you just piled all your active people in. They can then move in smaller groups and engage two different constellations. What will your fleets do then? Pick one to defend or split up? That will be a choice to be made. Especially considering the fact that whilst you can rely on several fleets on a regular basis for a big coalition, you cant rely on people keeping that up for months indefinately.
Nolak Ataru
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#295 - 2015-04-10 13:41:35 UTC
MoA telling GSF how to hold sov.......

On topic:
We don't have to always deploy multiple 255man fleets for every system and timer. All we need is one inty scout to tell us how many people are invading, form up a suitable response fleet, and bridge them out. We have a bustling new-player corp filled with people who are discovering how much fun PVP is.
Maybe with player-created gates and some of the other modules and whatnot, this might be a thing, but as it stands, it's bad.
Jenshae Chiroptera
#296 - 2015-04-10 14:12:57 UTC
"Oh look, someone is flipping a system. Isn't that sweet?"
"Come and fight us cowards!"
"Why? We are already staged out of an NPC station and can come and flip the system back when it suits us just as easily as you are doing it now."

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.

Varyah
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#297 - 2015-04-10 14:47:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Varyah
Kagura Nikon wrote:


because otherwise you will have fleets of 1 t3 and 50 logis ignoring the defenders and simply drilling trough the capture points.


There won't be any drilling because the defenders only need to tank 1 t3 and whatever dps 50 logis can do, which won't be much. So absolutely no problem tanking such a fleet and keeping your entosis up as well, i.e. at the worst: deadlock. But then again if both sides can't break the opposing fleet then neither side has control of the grid which is what we want to measure.
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#298 - 2015-04-10 15:28:20 UTC
Varyah wrote:
Kagura Nikon wrote:


because otherwise you will have fleets of 1 t3 and 50 logis ignoring the defenders and simply drilling trough the capture points.


There won't be any drilling because the defenders only need to tank 1 t3 and whatever dps 50 logis can do, which won't be much. So absolutely no problem tanking such a fleet and keeping your entosis up as well, i.e. at the worst: deadlock. But then again if both sides can't break the opposing fleet then neither side has control of the grid which is what we want to measure.

Is the idea that the 50 logis are ... repping?? or what. Whoever has a link running can't be repped so they will probably die pretty fast unless they are speed tanking like ... well you know, a ship that can go really fast with a small sig radius or something

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 ?

Chen Chillin
Stella Novus Invictus
#299 - 2015-04-11 01:07:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Chen Chillin
along with all of this excellent point and counter point.. lets add... Hey CCP you want more 0.0 Sov? get rid of NPC 0.0 Stations.

ok.. I know it was a bit off topic... am still trying to digest the previous 14 pages, but.... lets break this down a bit.

Assembly arrays - go ahead and destroy, loot and salvage. Unless the bonuses for these are majorly advantageous... there is nothing you can't do adequately in an XL station including super construction if i understand the new station structures and mods correctly.

Research labs - same.... they became obsolete 2 patches ago.

Drilling platforms - destroy, loot, salvage - really no difference then now.

Observatory arrays - new but yeah... destroy, loot, salvage.

Advertisement Centers - LOL... just what we need, Commercials on TV are bad enough... Definitely Destroy these.

so the following are the only controversial ones if I understand correctly.

Market and Office Hubs, Gates, Administration Hubs.

Hmmmmm Definately need to think more on those myself, will have to compose a post off line to get this one close to what i want to say.



Whoops sorry .... had both threads open and place this in the entosis one not the structures..... my bad.
Tejoe Nightstar
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#300 - 2015-04-11 01:56:08 UTC
Chen Chillin wrote:
along with all of this excellent point and counter point.. lets add... Hey CCP you want more 0.0 Sov? get rid of NPC 0.0 Stations.


I'd rather that CCP adds 6 to 8 new regions that have to be found through something similar to deep probes (from way back when), possibly augmented by the new Observatory Arrays.