These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Saisin
Chao3's Rogue Operatives Corp
#41 - 2015-04-02 00:13:33 UTC
I also think that the terminology between T1 and T2 Entosis link should be revisited, as suggested above. Overall, Ilike the changes and I do like that the new stront cost has been kept to the minimum per cycle.

Vote Borat Guereen for CSM XII

Check out the Minarchist Space Project
Cade Windstalker
#42 - 2015-04-02 00:17:25 UTC
Dominionix wrote:
I'm not sure if I've missed this, but I couldn't see it in this post anywhere so I'll ask:

Has there been a decision as to whether or not activation of the entosis module against structures will generate notifications for the defending alliance?


The defending Alliance gets a notification as soon as someone finishes a warm-up cycle and starts actually capturing a structure, per the original design outline from the blog post.
Rowells
Blackwater USA Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#43 - 2015-04-02 00:20:55 UTC
Dominionix wrote:
I'm not sure if I've missed this, but I couldn't see it in this post anywhere so I'll ask:

Has there been a decision as to whether or not activation of the entosis module against structures will generate notifications for the defending alliance?

yes, from last thread. Everyone in alliance will get notified regardless of location or role.
Daide Vondrichnov
French Drop-O-Panache
Snuffed Out
#44 - 2015-04-02 00:25:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Daide Vondrichnov
I dont like the way that drone boat almost lost nothing when they fit the enthosis, i mean most of their cargo bay is empty, most of their high slot are secondary, for exemple if i take the Vexor navy, my main input is my drones, most of these slots go for neuts and sometimes enthosis, well most of those are not a big deal but missile/turret boat will be hardly hit, probably loss dps, sometimes they will lose sparring slot (exemple machariel / barghest -> Heavy neuts is a must-have).
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#45 - 2015-04-02 00:46:47 UTC
Well, glad to have some information, first of all. The circlejerk that the previous thread got into with nothing more than speculatory stats was a whole new level of stupid.

Secondly, not bad. The T2 version is well out of reach of most smaller ships, which is a good thing.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
Cade Windstalker
#46 - 2015-04-02 00:54:55 UTC
Daide Vondrichnov wrote:
I dont like the way that drone boat almost lost nothing when they fit the enthosis, i mean most of their cargo bay is empty, most of their high slot are secondary, for exemple if i take the Vexor navy, my main input is my drones, most of these slots go for neuts and sometimes enthosis, well most of those are not a big deal but missile/turret boat will be hardly hit, probably loss dps, sometimes they will lose sparring slot (exemple machariel / barghest -> Heavy neuts is a must-have).


A good portion of available ships have a free high slot available, and you're going to want to make a tactical decision about which ships and how many fit Entosis Links, rather than simply fitting them to every ship in your fleet comp. Even on a drone boat if your opponent fits secondary weapons and you don't you're going to lose out in an even fight because of that extra DPS.

Also drone boats have a hard time flexing around the battlefield since they need to recall drones first in many cases, and they're vulnerable to Smart Bombs, bomb-Bombs, and a host of other tactics.

This is definitely a valid concern but just on the face of things I don't think it's a major one.
Daide Vondrichnov
French Drop-O-Panache
Snuffed Out
#47 - 2015-04-02 01:07:49 UTC
Cade Windstalker wrote:

This is definitely a valid concern but just on the face of things I don't think it's a major one.


My main concern is that why would i fly a mach enthosis for exemple and lose my neut/my dps output, while my gila/ishtar can lose some but keep their dps main dps source intact while being able to fit enthosis + utility thanks to sparring high, so yeah btw smartbomb but their are not that common, aswel as my :insertrandomboat: can be affected by damp & TD.
Trespasser
S0utherN Comfort
#48 - 2015-04-02 01:17:51 UTC
make the t1 a 10minute cycle and t2 a 5 minute cycle


Also make the fuel a new charge type... Pretty decent in size.. 200-300m3 each. Make the charge use stront and Heavy water to create.


Also in addition to the current penalty's make the entosis mod when active, act like a polarized weapon. Removing Resistances and maybe throw in a nice +500 sig bonus when active.




So now you cant warp, cloak, jump... receive reps of any kind, have a shitload of mass, have no resistances and a huge sig.



This means if you want to keep Reinforcing systems your going to need most likely someone to bring you more charges, and you better hold the grid because the entosis ship is going to be weak as hell.
Catherine Laartii
Doomheim
#49 - 2015-04-02 01:34:34 UTC
I can say I definitely approve of the t2 one being 100pg definitely helps with alleviating a lot of the concern behind it being used heavily by interceptors. I say give it an extra 50 pg to make abso-f*cking-lutely impossible to be fit by an inty and then we're golden.
Cade Windstalker
#50 - 2015-04-02 01:38:40 UTC
Catherine Laartii wrote:
I can say I definitely approve of the t2 one being 100pg definitely helps with alleviating a lot of the concern behind it being used heavily by interceptors. I say give it an extra 50 pg to make abso-f*cking-lutely impossible to be fit by an inty and then we're golden.


Not really necessary IMO with the mass increase. You're looking at an Inty that's pinned on grid for at least a minute, possibly 2, and now goes ~1km/s slower than a regular Inty does, meaning it's amazingly easy to catch it and put it in your scrap book like a pressed butterfly, and it has to either online the thing when it gets to target or be slow enough to easily catch on a gate.
Zazad Antollare
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#51 - 2015-04-02 02:10:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Zazad Antollare
1 stront per cycle is a bit low, should be a minimum of 10.
Lienzo
Amanuensis
#52 - 2015-04-02 02:38:50 UTC
Perhaps the effectiveness could be attenuated with distance from the node. Basically a falloff mechanism.
Rowells
Blackwater USA Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#53 - 2015-04-02 03:30:06 UTC
Zazad Antollare wrote:
1 stront per cycle is a bit low, should be a minimum of 10.

why do you think that?
PinkKnife
The Cuddlefish
Ethereal Dawn
#54 - 2015-04-02 03:32:52 UTC
So then, its kitsune sov?

Seriously though whats to stop people from just coming out and using blackbirds or keres or kitsunes and perma-ruining your attempts to take something. Sure you can blap them, but brave has enough disposible ewar frigs to perma defend any fleet despite not holding the grid.

I'd suggest making the ship get 100X the sensor strength or lock range as well. At least then you have a chance to hold the link on against ewar.

The fight should be over control of the grid, not who can jam out the other more.
Rowells
Blackwater USA Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#55 - 2015-04-02 03:47:17 UTC  |  Edited by: Rowells
PinkKnife wrote:
So then, its kitsune sov?

Seriously though whats to stop people from just coming out and using blackbirds or keres or kitsunes and perma-ruining your attempts to take something. Sure you can blap them, but brave has enough disposible ewar frigs to perma defend any fleet despite not holding the grid.
If they have enough disposable throwaway power to keep you from holding the grid, then so be it. It is a legitimate concern an alliance needs to sddress before it tries to take sov like that. This change isnt to remove the impact of numbers, but make them less necessary.
I'd suggest making the ship get 100X the sensor strength or lock range as well. At least then you have a chance to hold the link on against ewar.

The fight should be over control of the grid, not who can jam out the other more.

If they have enough disposable throwaway power to keep you from holding the grid, then so be it. It is a legitimate concern an alliance needs to sddress before it tries to take sov like that. This change isnt to remove the impact of numbers, but make them less necessary.

If the enemy can keep jamming you, you don't control the grid.
Aiyshimin
Shiva Furnace
#56 - 2015-04-02 04:12:56 UTC
Posting these questions again, as players are already planning their tactics and strategies for the summer, we deserve some more information.

Aiyshimin wrote:
Some specific questions on the Command Node capture event:


  • Are the Command Nodes in deadspace? (like Large FW complexes)
  • Is the exact victory condition for the event just "whoever first completes 10 nodes"?
  • Can NPC corp members use Entosis Links on structures?
  • Does the Entosis Link cycle continue without target lock?
  • Do the nodes have a visible timer for everyone on grid?


and a few more:


  • Do the nodes allow anchoring deployables in their vicinity?
  • Will the nodes have a decloaking sphere around them?


The deadspace or not part is the most important now, along with the "tug of war" specifics. Thanks!
Rowells
Blackwater USA Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#57 - 2015-04-02 04:46:11 UTC  |  Edited by: Rowells
Aiyshimin wrote:
  • Can NPC corp members use Entosis Links on structures?
    • Yes.
    Aiyshimin wrote:
  • Does the Entosis Link cycle continue without target lock?
    • Yes, but the timer for the structure does not.
    Aiyshimin wrote:
  • Do the nodes have a visible timer for everyone on grid?
    • I'm going to assume yes since every structure timer in game has a visible timer.

    and what do you mean by deadspace? Acceleration gates and such?
    Dr Farallon
    Moongoo Mining and Mixing
    Goonswarm Federation
    #58 - 2015-04-02 04:48:38 UTC
    Lets not forget the whole idea isn't to allow asymmetrical warfare through a handful of roaming frigates, but for smaller corps and alliances to take and hold sov with proportionally sized fleets. I don't think it's CCP's intention to devise a system based around the idea of harassing large alliances as much as its meant to help the little guy get in the bigger game.

    And 1 strontium is way too low. Maybe 10 or 25 per cycle. If you're gonna do 1 you might as well do none at all.
    Rowells
    Blackwater USA Inc.
    Pandemic Horde
    #59 - 2015-04-02 04:55:01 UTC
    Dr Farallon wrote:
    Lets not forget the whole idea isn't to allow asymmetrical warfare through a handful of roaming frigates,
    Not specifically frigsates, but:
    Politics By Another Means Devblog 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.
    So, frigates in multiple places fits the bill.

    Dr Farallon wrote:
    And 1 strontium is way too low. Maybe 10 or 25 per cycle. If you're gonna do 1 you might as well do none at all

    I'm of the opinion that the stront requirement is unnecessary.
    Humang
    Sudden Buggery
    Sending Thots And Players
    #60 - 2015-04-02 04:58:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Humang
    Dr Farallon wrote:
    And 1 strontium is way too low. Maybe 10 or 25 per cycle. If you're gonna do 1 you might as well do none at all.


    I agree with this, in that it should be removed altogether, It seems like a requirement that would be more if an annoyance than a limiting factor, and for a system that already has a fair amount of drawbacks.

    I'll probably regret suggesting this, but how about using a fatigue mechanic instead:
    after X number of cycles you need to wait Y amount of time before you can reactivate it.

    AFK cloaking thread Summary - Provided by Paikis Good Post Etiquette - Provided by CCP Grayscale