These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Altrue
Exploration Frontier inc
Tactical-Retreat
#61 - 2015-04-02 05:13:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Altrue
Nice job :)

I still think limiting max speed would've been more fair for the T1 version (and more effective!). Adding mass penalizes even the slowest frigates, as opposed to limiting speed which only penalizes the fastest ships.

The T2 version is now almost out of the picture for frigs and dessies, which is in my opinion definitely a good thing. Wouldn't it warrant a decrease in price tag? Big smile

Signature Tanking Best Tanking

[Ex-F] CEO - Eve-guides.fr

Ultimate Citadel Guide - 2016 EVE Career Chart

Aiyshimin
Shiva Furnace
#62 - 2015-04-02 05:22:00 UTC
I still think there should be two varieties of Entosis Links, short and long range, with the short range links having the shorter cycle time. These can then have T2 and faction versions as necessary.
Inslander Wessette
Unleashed' Fury
The Initiative.
#63 - 2015-04-02 06:32:20 UTC
Nicely done fozzie . + 1 from me.
FearlessLittleToaster
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#64 - 2015-04-02 06:55:09 UTC  |  Edited by: FearlessLittleToaster
Thank you for posting this. For whatever its worth these changes, plus the changes to deployable infrastructure, fix all the potential issues with the Entosis modules that I had concerns about. The attacker now has to put themselves at risk to mess with the defender's home. If this shipped as written here I think it would work quite well. I do have a couple minor criticisms but they are secondary.

1. Bump the cost in stront up to at least four, or eliminate it entirely. 1 stront, at 3m3, is a silly small number that imposes no real hardship on the user. A single interceptor could carry enough fuel to Entosis (Entosize? Entoserate? Sovlazorpewpew?) for hours on a T1 module without giving up anything meaningful. The only time it would really matter would be if a player wanted to carry a bubble or mobile depot and had a reason to care about cargo space.

Even for single frigates the chances of living long enough to burn through half a cargo bay of stront in defended space are so low as to be irrelevant. Besides a few hilarious fringe cases where somebody would lose the battle by forgetting to bring any fuel at all, loading stront before a fight would just be one more annoying box to check like making sure you clone was up to date used to be.

Personally I favor making the module require more over having it require no fuel, but no fuel would not be a disaster.

I do like the idea of the "T2" module using more fuel. That is a great drawback if they use fuel at all.

2. Change the link names to small and large. The way the modules are statted up here they conform far more closely to small and large guns than T1 an T2 modules. That would keep things consistent and intuitive.
xttz
GSF Logistics and Posting Reserves
Goonswarm Federation
#65 - 2015-04-02 06:57:18 UTC  |  Edited by: xttz
double post~
xttz
GSF Logistics and Posting Reserves
Goonswarm Federation
#66 - 2015-04-02 07:03:10 UTC  |  Edited by: xttz
Anhenka wrote:
The one unit of stront per cycle is.... entirely ineffectual.

Even a Stiletto with a midget cargo hold of 92 m3 will have enough room for 30 cycles, or 150 minutes for a t1 link.

Can't honestly say I would ever expect it to live through 30 cycles, so the limit seems nearly pointless, even on a ship with the smallest cargo bay.

Humang wrote:
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.


Another +1 here too. It's just like the 1 ozone per cycle the Clone Vat Bay currently has, entirely pointless. Also there's no correlation between cycle time and usage. I feel this would be more appropriate:

T1 Link:
5 minute cycle time, 10 stront per cycle = 30-90 stront per full capture

T2 Link:
2 minute cycle time, 3-4 stront per cycle = 18-84 stront per full capture

This means most frigates will need to resupply after a typical capture events, but larger ships can stay in the field longer.

Beyond that the changes are fantastic. The only other cosmetic change I'd like to see is this:

Vincent Athena wrote:
Maybe instead of "T1 Entosis link " and "T2 Entosis link " you should call them "Small Entosis link" and "Large Entosis link".
Given the range, power and energy use, that would better fit what you are doing.


...as it doesn't fit in with the typical T2 pattern of being 10-20% better, but rather the difference is more like going from a 125mm Railgun to a 425mm Railgun.
Scatim Helicon
State War Academy
Caldari State
#67 - 2015-04-02 07:09:49 UTC
Yeah, just +1ing the comment on terminology, calling them T1 and T2 is kinda weird when there's such a difference in fitting requirements, with these stats they really should be Small Entosis Link I and Medium Entosis Link I unless there's some reason you absolutely need to tie the bigger version into the T2 invention process.

(Making them Small and Medium tech 1 also opens up the possibility of more conventional T2 versions down the road if required)

Every time you post a WiS thread, Hilmar strangles a kitten.

kidkoma
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#68 - 2015-04-02 08:06:23 UTC
Smile

This fixes most of my problems with the SovWand.

Its harder to run around with 'trollcepter' which is perfect.

I'm going to mirror a bunch of the earlier comments, when/if I go out to magicsov, I don't think anyone really expects anything (especially a frig) to live long enough to burn through a cargo hold of straunt. The logistical backbone would be "everyone throw 25 units of straunt in your cargo bay" or some form of ammo truck.

I threw this together this lazly mode ammo truck.

http://prntscr.com/6ohgbr

I didn't know where/if Stront is in Pyfa, but that doesn't matter... cap booster 75's are 3m3.

So at the rate of 1 Stront per 5min cycle for the tech 1 SovWand, this particular ammo truck has enough sov gas for 1,010 minutes or 16.833 hours.

With a T2 mod, running at 1 stront per 2 min cycle, this particular ammo truck has enough room to run for 404 min or 6.733 hours.

Regardless of which module, it is absolutely trivial to fuel a sov fleet. A handful of these could bring enough sov gas for ages. or, you could have blops in a cloaky hauler, or a nullified T3 running back and fourth... Or just tell everybody to bring 25 and literally never run out. It just seems like an arbitrary hurdle that doesn't add any interesting gameplay (it takes very little effort to blops in a cloaky hauler). Even if you make the requirements more involved, even the most incompetent entities should be able to move in more then enough. To get it to a point where it would really be a logistical challenge, you would have to push the requirements way farther into the realm of '**** this stupid ****' game play.

All this really effects is two dudes who didn't fit guns mining the same sov.

And really, if two people want to mine the same sov, without shooting each other, why should you stop them? The escalating # of sov beacons should do a decent job of solving the problem of locked fights. If the fight is a back and forth, cut throat, slug fest wouldn't that be what you were trying to achieve with this change? I would call that a success.

Its been said before, Jamming/Damping ships have a ton of power in this new system. I don't know if its a bad thing, but it is a thing.

All being said, if these changes were to ship as described, I wouldn't be salty.
Xindi Kraid
Itsukame-Zainou Hyperspatial Inquiries Ltd.
Arataka Research Consortium
#69 - 2015-04-02 09:50:59 UTC
So how much are structures going to be able to control their own grid?

While we don't want to end up back where we were having to grind structure HP, there's also something to be said for not just allowing drive by linking in the time when everyone using the structure is away.

Also how long do you expect capture to take, and what will modify that time, if anything?


Structures should actually require a somewhat committed force, not just a few people reinforcing the structure in 15 minutes for the lolz.
Iroquoiss Pliskin
9B30FF Labs
#70 - 2015-04-02 09:57:31 UTC
FearlessLittleToaster wrote:


1. Bump the cost in stront up to at least four, or eliminate it entirely. 1 stront, at 3m3, is a silly small number that imposes no real hardship on the user. A single interceptor could carry enough fuel to Entosis (Entosize? Entoserate? Sovlazorpewpew?) for hours on a T1 module without giving up anything meaningful.


Super good point - the new bottleneck has been identified, which will make logistics working in overdrive. Smile

I'd love to see the activation/usage amounts required match BC/BS cargobays with all the smaller hulls being at at great disadvantage when it comes to very prolonged engagements/ping-pongs.

/hint, /hint. Blink
Rowells
Blackwater USA Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#71 - 2015-04-02 10:01:24 UTC
Xindi Kraid wrote:

While we don't want to end up back where we were having to grind structure HP, there's also something to be said for not just allowing drive by linking in the time when everyone using the structure is away.
thats what the timezone mechanics are intended for. However badly the originally stated form is, you wont be losing everything just because you went to bed.

Xindi Kraid wrote:
Also how long do you expect capture to take, and what will modify that time, if anything?
Capture depends on level of system upgrades and indices. approx. 10 minutes for unused and undefended and upwards to 40minutes for fully upgraded. not including warmup timer. I think there is a chart somewhere between the devblogs and dev threads.

Xindi Kraid wrote:
Structures should actually require a somewhat committed force, not just a few people reinforcing the structure in 15 minutes for the lolz.

if you cant be bothered to use the system enough for the upgrades to increase the timer and allowing longer response time, then you really didn't need the system for anything other than a buffer zone.

And all an attacker needs to commit to the fight, is whatever can defeat the defenders, should the defenders choose to show up.
Jack Hayson
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#72 - 2015-04-02 10:17:42 UTC  |  Edited by: Jack Hayson
Rowells wrote:
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.

It helps breaking stalemates. The defenders usually won't run out of fuel because they can just dock and get more, but the attacking fleet eventually will run out if they don't bring in e.g. cloaky haulers.
However 1 stront is pretty insignificant. Even a half filled cruiser cargo hold would give you enough stront for more cycles than anyone would be willing to sit through.

EDIT: on the other hand that would be yet another buff to drone boats for entosis warfare (since drone boats don't need to carry ammo)
Xindi Kraid
Itsukame-Zainou Hyperspatial Inquiries Ltd.
Arataka Research Consortium
#73 - 2015-04-02 10:27:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Xindi Kraid
I haven't seen anywhere that CCP said you can only anchor large and XL structures in sov space, if they haven't said that then you can't use sov as a reasoning for anything related to the capture mechanics since there are plenty of use cases where it doesn't apply.

EvE doesn't revolve around null.
High and low sec can get along without structures but would be the lesser for their lack, but structures are a very important aspect of W-space as well.


Also, I do understand you should only need whatever it takes to defeat the defenders, I am just saying the structure should count as a defender, so we don't have crap like 2 frigates showing up to **** off the defenders only to get run off That's not a commited attack, that's troll lol lol

What I am saying, essentially, is that there should be enough of a threat integral to attacking a structure, it's not worth while to poke every structure you see for ***** and giggles. It can still be kept low to allow for smaller groups to come in and actually take something should they want to take something, though there is something to be said for home field advantage.
Emmy Mnemonic
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#74 - 2015-04-02 10:28:10 UTC
Concerning capitals and entosis-links:

A carrier with entosis link will take x5 as long time to capture a sov structure, but what will happen if a defender shows up with a frig and an entosis link - will it be counterd/stopped by one defending frig with an entosis link? Or will the frig have "more power" over the capital? I.e will it take 5 capitals with entosis links to balance one subcap with entosis link?

Other questionmarks:

If an attacker entosises for say 5 out of the necessary 10 minutes, and is then destroyed, does the defender have to "de-entosis" the structure back for the equal time before it is saved fully? And if the attacker sends in another ship to entosis, will it have only 5 minutes left until the command nodes are spawned, or how will this work?


Ex ex-CEO of Svea Rike [.S.R.]

Iroquoiss Pliskin
9B30FF Labs
#75 - 2015-04-02 10:30:39 UTC  |  Edited by: Iroquoiss Pliskin
Jack Hayson wrote:
Rowells wrote:
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.

It helps breaking stalemates. The defenders usually won't run out of fuel because they can just dock and get more, but the attacking fleet eventually will run out if they don't bring in e.g. cloaky haulers.
However 1 stront is pretty insignificant. Even a half filled cruiser cargo hold would give you enough stront for more cycles than anyone would be willing to sit through.

EDIT: on the other hand that would be yet another buff to drone boats for entosis warfare (since drone boats don't need to carry ammo)


Agreed - Increase Strontium consumption to proliferate BC/BS use, CCP.

Must. Have. Large Cargobay. Good Tank Too. Yes. (ง ͠° ͟ل͜ ͡°)ง

However, perhaps it is too early to say that the consumption is not high enough, and perhaps the battle and geography dynamics will sort themselves out.

Even CCP doesn't know that at this point. Smile

P.S. I have a Cpt. Picard .jpeg awaiting, if this turns out to be Dread-only warfare. Roll
afkalt
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#76 - 2015-04-02 10:33:36 UTC  |  Edited by: afkalt
I think the fuel is more a token thing to limit the ability of of troll pinging across wide ranges of space by a single ship. For an active capture attempt it is irrelevant...feels much more aimed at spool up>ping>move on>spool up ping type gameplay.


I'd prefer the mass to only apply when active - else we'll start seeing weird things like bumping ships with an entosis mods for the extra mass (every little helps right) and other odd uses I haven't thought of yet. Feels like you've done this to limit fast aligns, but the whole offlining the mod negates this completely.

Edited reading fail out.
Aran Hotchkiss
Tactically Challenged
The Initiative.
#77 - 2015-04-02 10:38:19 UTC
Emmy Mnemonic wrote:
Concerning capitals and entosis-links:
A carrier with entosis link will take x5 as long time to capture a sov structure, but what will happen if a defender shows up with a frig and an entosis link - will it be counterd/stopped by one defending frig with an entosis link? Or will the frig have "more power" over the capital? I.e will it take 5 capitals with entosis links to balance one subcap with entosis link?



Making a few assumptions here but whatevs

The cap-ship role penalty (can't remember exact number, whatever a 400% bonus to cycle time is a *5 multiplier and a 500% is a *6 multiplier) has a few effects:

- Takes five times as long to begin capturing a sov structure, once it has completed its first cycle it would take just as long un-interupted as a sub-cap would to capture something
- Is has to wait five times longer than a subcap to decycle the link and leave in the event of trouble

Quote:

-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
-Other than that warmup cycle, the cycle time of the module does not impact how long it takes to capture a structure. Once you're past the warmup cycle all that matters is that your module stays active


In regards to defending with entosis links... if you're attacking a structure and the defenders have more than zero entosis links on their structure, progress is halted.

You should have enough control over your herd of cats to make them understand. If they constantly make misstakes, get better cats.

Xindi Kraid
Itsukame-Zainou Hyperspatial Inquiries Ltd.
Arataka Research Consortium
#78 - 2015-04-02 10:46:05 UTC
Aran Hotchkiss wrote:

- Is has to wait five times longer than a subcap to decycle the link and leave in the event of trouble
Have the devs said how entosis links will interact with siege modules?
If you can't be remote repped, and are pinned down anyways, might as well go into siege (triage, etc.) mode bonus unless they disallow siege mode while using an entosis link.
Galphii
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#79 - 2015-04-02 10:49:19 UTC
A greatly improved system Foz, though 1 stront per cycle isn't going to be enough. I'd suggest 2 for the T1 and 5 for the T2. The mass increase is on the light side too, consider increasing that a little more. Otherwise, its looking good.

"Wow, that internet argument completely changed my fundamental belief system," said no one, ever.

Aran Hotchkiss
Tactically Challenged
The Initiative.
#80 - 2015-04-02 10:58:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Aran Hotchkiss
Xindi Kraid wrote:
Have the devs said how entosis links will interact with siege modules?
If you can't be remote repped, and are pinned down anyways, might as well go into siege (triage, etc.) mode bonus unless they disallow siege mode while using an entosis link.


Haven't read anywhere any limitations on module limitations, reasonable to assume they would've mentioned it in here, given that it's a pretty big implication.
FozzieBro wrote:

-High Slot module, limit of one per ship
-Requires a target lock on the structure to have any impact
-While the module is active, your ship is unable to cloak, warp, dock, jump or receive remote assistance. There is no way to get rid of the module penalties early except for losing your ship


Others have mentioned the interaction between tactical reconfiguration modules and the entosis link, I can't really comment as I'm not a cap pilot.
afkalt wrote:
I'd prefer the mass to only apply when active - else we'll start seeing weird things like bumping ships with highs full of entosis mods for the extra mass

(Additionally the second point nullifies stacking entosis links to go bump-omaniac)

You should have enough control over your herd of cats to make them understand. If they constantly make misstakes, get better cats.