These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Previous Topic Next Topic
FT Diomedes
The Graduates
#481 - 2015-05-09 04:03:16 UTC
They could allow Entosis-equipped ships to receive remote sensor boosting or remote ECCM, while still disallowing remote repairing. That allows the attacker to have more than one way to counter the Falcon you folks have been talking about. Although why you would use a Falcon instead of 20 Griffins or a couple of Blackbirds is beyond me.

CCP should add more NPC 0.0 space to open it up and liven things up: the Stepping Stones project.

Ransu Asanari
Perkone
Caldari State
#482 - 2015-05-09 07:52:11 UTC
Wanda Fayne wrote:
Losing target lock post-warmup does not reset the timer progress, it only stops it. It does force the attacker to have multiple entosis-enabled links and/or repeat the warmup process to continue.

As far as "staying on grid", I have seen grids stretched over thousands of km's. Is this what you want to allow in this mechanic? Grid-fu is not new and not difficult to achieve.

The mechanic change you propose takes strategies out of the battle. Ewar doesn't just favor the defender, it can also be used by the attacker (and should be anticipated) in the strategy. If Ewar itself is unbalanced that is a completely different mechanic change to consider.

Thanks for the discussion. Let me clarify and add a few points:

  • I may not have been clear. Yes, I understand that if the currently suggested mechanic requires a target lock post-warmup, losing that lock, either by being jammed, dampened, or otherwise, will stop capture progress. By "reset progress" I mean that you'll be forced to re-acquire lock, and go through the warmup cycle again before capture progress can continue.

  • Since the T1 and T2 Entosis Link modules already have defined operational ranges (T1 = 25km, T2 = 250km), "staying on grid" means you would still have to stay within that defined range of the structure for the Entosis Link module to continue capturing. I'm not at all suggesting a way to exploit grid mechanics like Grid-Fu, or moving away once the warmup cycle completes. We already have modules which function within control ranges without target locks, such as drones. Having something like that mechanic, or having the structure itself lock you up once the warmup cycle completes (In Soviet Russia, Structure Entosis Links You!) might be possible, and count towards capture as long as the Entosis Link module remains active and in range. I don't want to get into a discussion of the technical details of how this could work, since programatic implementation might be tricky. It's just a suggestion to work around some of the issues others have brought up with EWAR being a major concern with this new mechanic. Simply giving a player with an active Entosis Link module EWAR immunity could easily be abused in other ways.

  • One of the stated goals with this mechanic is "The Entosis Link itself should have the minimum possible effect on what ships and tactics players can choose". It already risks this goal, as it restricts player strategy by denying remote assistance. The stated reason for denying remote assistance is "to discourage mechanics that lead to indefinite stalemates over a structure or command node". Keeping that in mind, I also don't want to see an indefinite stalemate situation where capture progress can be delayed simply by breaking locks every few minutes, and not having to commit to fighting or controlling the capture grid.


I agree with you that we shouldn't try to take strategies out of the battle; but the reality is the new mechanic will create new behaviors and its own meta based on the requirements of capturing. There has been other discussion above around how EWAR would theoretically be used and countered. I think my suggestion is a good compromise since it deepens strategies but still leaves a place for EWAR to be effective without being overpowering.



fuzyfoxkit Omanid
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#483 - 2015-05-09 15:17:30 UTC
Can we possibly get the base power grid on the t1 Module to Go up

Reason As most things in eve it should be skill based
like 25 Pwg for t1 and for every Level of infomorph requirement is dropped by 5
Wanda Fayne
#484 - 2015-05-09 16:22:31 UTC
Ransu Asanari wrote:

Thanks for the discussion. Let me clarify and add a few points:

  • I may not have been clear. Yes, I understand that if the currently suggested mechanic requires a target lock post-warmup, losing that lock, either by being jammed, dampened, or otherwise, will stop capture progress. By "reset progress" I mean that you'll be forced to re-acquire lock, and go through the warmup cycle again before capture progress can continue.

  • Since the T1 and T2 Entosis Link modules already have defined operational ranges (T1 = 25km, T2 = 250km), "staying on grid" means you would still have to stay within that defined range of the structure for the Entosis Link module to continue capturing. I'm not at all suggesting a way to exploit grid mechanics like Grid-Fu, or moving away once the warmup cycle completes. We already have modules which function within control ranges without target locks, such as drones. Having something like that mechanic, or having the structure itself lock you up once the warmup cycle completes (In Soviet Russia, Structure Entosis Links You!) might be possible, and count towards capture as long as the Entosis Link module remains active and in range. I don't want to get into a discussion of the technical details of how this could work, since programatic implementation might be tricky. It's just a suggestion to work around some of the issues others have brought up with EWAR being a major concern with this new mechanic. Simply giving a player with an active Entosis Link module EWAR immunity could easily be abused in other ways.

  • One of the stated goals with this mechanic is "The Entosis Link itself should have the minimum possible effect on what ships and tactics players can choose". It already risks this goal, as it restricts player strategy by denying remote assistance. The stated reason for denying remote assistance is "to discourage mechanics that lead to indefinite stalemates over a structure or command node". Keeping that in mind, I also don't want to see an indefinite stalemate situation where capture progress can be delayed simply by breaking locks every few minutes, and not having to commit to fighting or controlling the capture grid.


I agree with you that we shouldn't try to take strategies out of the battle; but the reality is the new mechanic will create new behaviors and its own meta based on the requirements of capturing. There has been other discussion above around how EWAR would theoretically be used and countered. I think my suggestion is a good compromise since it deepens strategies but still leaves a place for EWAR to be effective without being overpowering.


I see your proposal. It still penalizes the defender who is counting on 2-4 minutes of response time. After the warmup cycle has finished ewar would be virtually useless to stop the entosis process. You are forcing the defenders to babysit for 4hrs per day, rather than counting on being efficiently reactive.

I could agree with Daenika's suggestion that the attacker has to re-aquire target lock before the end of the entosis cycle. I still feel the initial advantage should always fall to the defender.

Funny how the argument started out with people worried the attacker wasn't going to bring a fight to the process...Blink

"your comments just confirms this whole idea is totally pathetic" -Lan Wang-

  • - "hub humping station gamey neutral logi warspam wankery" -Ralph King-Griffin-
Toggl3
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#485 - 2015-05-14 22:21:48 UTC
If forcing the target to lose lock is how most Entosis fights end up happening, you end up with everyone just using a Triage Carrier/Supercarrier/Titan with an Entosis Link to capture the node, since they are immune to EWAR and thus, can't be easily pried off of the capture process with a simple jam cycle. You then have to actually kill the ship to stop the capture. After the warmup, the capture takes the same amount of time regardless of how many cycles you make, so the increased cycle times are not even an issue (even a blessing, it saves how much Stront you are using).

If loss of target lock is somehow no longer a factor (such as making all ships immune to EWAR while an Entosis Link is active) you end up with nullified cloaky ninja nano Tengu warping through bubbles (or jumping in with a Black Ops gang) and orbiting the node at 249km without a care in the world.

Even if you dont want to use Tengu, a single pilot can effectively attempt to capture every system he warps through, since it takes a minimum of 3 Strontium to an upper limit of 21 total Strontium (42 minutes for a level 5 occupied system, using a Tech 2 EL). May not be effective every time, but even if the alliance comes to defend, if you're orbiting right on the cusp of 250km, its pretty easy to burn away from the node and warp off once the cycle ends. Eventually people are gonna mess up and that one guy in a Cheetah is gonna reinforce a node or disable a station service.

Large, sprawling alliances have to worry about the gnats from highsec getting uppity and trying to come steal all their unused space!
Victor Niederhoffer
Six Project
#486 - 2015-05-24 07:46:42 UTC
I don't know if this is right place to ask that, but I would like to suggest the Entosis Link be able to take ownership of anchored (but not online POS). Even in highsec.

I would say this to be an aggression, therefore driving Concord in the case there is no war in place. Is it possible?