Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 .. 17 :: [one page] |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 2 post(s) |
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
12422
|
Posted - 2015.04.01 22:28:12 -
[1] - Quote
Hey everyone. We're ready to announce some finer details about the current state of our plans for the Entosis Link module.
Big thanks to everyone who has provided feedback so far, especially in this thread (which I'm locking to move the discussion over here now that we have more detailed stats).
I want to repeat some text from the OP of that earlier thread that helped explain what our goals and motivations are when determining gameplay balance surrounding the Entosis Link:
Quote:To explain our current approach and help focus the feedback, I want to discuss some of our specific goals for the Entosis Link mechanic itself.
As much as possible, the Entosis Link capture progress should reflect which group has effective military control of the grid.
At its core, the Entosis Link mechanic is a way for the server to tell who won (or is winning) a fight in a specific location. This is a surprisingly tough thing for the server to determine. The best way to win a structure or command node with the Entosis Link should be to gain effective control of the grid. Our plan is to use very small amounts of Stront, which do not add much cost to using the module but that are fairly bulky and will take up noticeable cargo space for extended sov attacks. This means that there will always be an intermediate state where the grid is "contested" and neither side is making significant progress until the fight is resolved.
The optimal strategy for fighting over a location with the Entosis Link should be to gain effective control of the grid.
This is the other side of the coin. In practice it means that we should discourage mechanics that lead to indefinite stalemates over a structure or command node. This is the reason for the "no remote reps" condition on active Links. This is also the goal that trollceptors would contradict if they were to become dominant.
The Entosis Link itself should have the minimum possible effect on what ships and tactics players can choose.
Entosis Links will always have some effect on the types of ships and tactics people find viable for Sov warfare, but we should strive to keep those effects to a minimum. As much as possible, we should work towards a meta where whatever fleet concept would win the fight and control the grid would also be viable for using the Entosis Links. This also means that we don't want to be using the Entosis Links to intentionally manipulate ship use. We've seen some people suggesting that we restrict Entosis Links to battleships, command ships or capital ships in order to buff those classes. Using the Entosis Link mechanics to artificially skew the meta in that way is not something we are interested in doing. This goal is why we intend to use the lightest touch possible when working towards the first two goals. It would be easy to overreact to potentially unwanted uses of the Entosis Link by placing extremely harsh restrictions on the module, but we believe that by looking at the situation in a calm and measured manner we can find a good balance.
The restrictions and penalties on the Entosis Link should be as simple and understandable as possible.
This is a fairly obvious goal but I do think it's worth stating explicitly. If we can achieve similar results with two different sets of restrictions and penalties, we'll generally prefer to use the simpler and more understandable set. This also means that we'd generally prefer to use pre-existing mechanics that players will already be familiar with, rather than using completely new mechanics.
Let's go over the stats for the module that have already been announced:
- 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
- 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
- Capital ships have a role bonus that increases the module cycle time by 5x
Two versions:
- T1 with a base 5 minute cycle time and 25km range, costing ~20m isk
- T2 with a base 2 minute cycle time and a 250km range, costing ~80m isk
Now on to the new details. A few players have brought up the idea of putting a fuel use on the Entosis link in our feedback threads, and we discussed the idea further with players at Fanfest. We like the way that fuel use encouraged logistics and supported attacks, and discourages leaving alts logged off behind enemy lines. It also helps break long stalemates in the worst case scenario of neither side being able or willing to engage each other. We're also adding a small flat mass increase that will apply whenever the Entosis link is online (not just when it's active). This will work much like smaller armor plates, where it has a more noticeable effect on smaller ships than on larger ships. Finally, we have the fitting and capacitor costs of the module. Like most other modules, T2 will use more cap and require more fitting than T1.
T1 Entosis Link:
- Requires Infomorph Psychology 1
- +250,000 mass when online
- 5 Minute Cycle Time, 25km range
- 10 PWG, 1 CPU
- 50 Capacitor per cycle (0.1666 cap/s)
- Consumes 1 Stront per cycle
T2 Entosis Link:
- Requires Infomorph Psychology 4
- +1,000,000 mass when online
- 2 Minute Cycle Time, 250km range
- 100 PWG, 10 CPU
- 500 Capacitor per cycle (4.166 cap/s)
- Consumes 1 Stront per cycle
As always, nothing is set in stone and we plan to continue discussing this new module and its impacts with you all over the next few months. This thread will be the new focus for discussion of the Entosis Link and its balance, and I hope that you will all let us know what you think of this version of the proposal and its implications. Thanks!
Game Designer | Team Five-0
https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie
http://www.twitch.tv/ccp_fozzie/
|
|
Crysantos Callahan
Control-Space DARKNESS.
31
|
Posted - 2015.04.01 22:37:05 -
[2] - Quote
1st of April, best day to post :)
space...going to comment on the actual content here afterwards :P |
Saede Riordan
Alexylva Paradox Low-Class
7539
|
Posted - 2015.04.01 22:38:14 -
[3] - Quote
Reserved.
Post coming in a bit.
Fear and Loathing in Internet Spaceships
|
Milla Goodpussy
Federal Navy Academy
220
|
Posted - 2015.04.01 22:40:59 -
[4] - Quote
go to riot!
or we riot!
|
Cade Windstalker
Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra
323
|
Posted - 2015.04.01 22:45:57 -
[5] - Quote
Some quick questions for clarification:
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 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 Does this mean that if multiple ships are trading Entosis Links on a structure that each ship needs to run its own warm-up cycle? Like, if the structure is capturing right now, and I activate my module 10 seconds before my allies de-activates, do I need to go through a full cycle before I start progressing the capture timer or do I start capturing right away because my side already had an active capture going on when I activated my module?
- +250,000 mass when online
...
- +1,000,000 mass when online
Can you share the process behind picking these numbers? They seem to roughly match up to Meta 4 400mm and 800mm plates respectively but that still seems like a significant amount of weight in any sort of speed reliant fit.
Also the power-grid requirements are pretty high for anything not at least the size of a Cruiser (ignoring T3 Destroyers for the moment) so does this mean you guys feel that's about the minimum bar that's likely to be relevant in Sov as a fleet composition?
Glad to have more details and it's nice to see a lot of the feedback from the previous thread obviously taken into consideration in this one. Here's hoping this will be a very productive thread as well, thanks Fozzie! |
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans
2187
|
Posted - 2015.04.01 22:48:21 -
[6] - Quote
IB4 100pwg 10km/s 250km lock range trollceptor plans |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
1564
|
Posted - 2015.04.01 22:49:24 -
[7] - Quote
The mass changes and use of strontium as fuel do a lot to curtail the use of interceptors with entosis links. The T2 module, in particular, nearly doubles the mass of an interceptor. Thank you for taking these concerns into account with the new sov model.
e: didn't notice the capacitor either GÇö that is more capacitor than, e.g., a malediction has. Definitely going to be effective in curtailing the use of the T2 version of this module on frigates.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
12428
|
Posted - 2015.04.01 22:52:24 -
[8] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote:Some quick questions for clarification: 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 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 Does this mean that if multiple ships are trading Entosis Links on a structure that each ship needs to run its own warm-up cycle? Like, if the structure is capturing right now, and I activate my module 10 seconds before my allies de-activates, do I need to go through a full cycle before I start progressing the capture timer or do I start capturing right away because my side already had an active capture going on when I activated my module? The warmup cycles for each Entosis Link are independent of each other. In your example, your side would not make progress towards capture in the time between when your allies de-activate and when your second cycle begins.
Cade Windstalker wrote:Quote:
- +250,000 mass when online
- 10 PWG, 1 CPU
...
- +1,000,000 mass when online
- 100 PWG, 10 CPU
Can you share the process behind picking these numbers? They seem to roughly match up to Meta 4 400mm and 800mm plates respectively but that still seems like a significant amount of weight in any sort of speed reliant fit. Also the power-grid requirements are pretty high for anything not at least the size of a Cruiser (ignoring T3 Destroyers for the moment) so does this mean you guys feel that's about the minimum bar that's likely to be relevant in Sov as a fleet composition? The powergrid requirements for the T2 version are indeed difficult for frigates and destroyers. The T1 version is a much more viable option for frigates, but yes this mean we would expect ships of cruiser size or higher to have a lot of importance in contested sov warfare.
Game Designer | Team Five-0
https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie
http://www.twitch.tv/ccp_fozzie/
|
|
Snape Dieboldmotor
Minotaur Congress
37
|
Posted - 2015.04.01 22:58:08 -
[9] - Quote
I can tell you put a lot of thought into this. Nice job.
I might be tempted to double the cpu requirement however to prevent trolling even more |
Aryth
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1711
|
Posted - 2015.04.01 22:58:17 -
[10] - Quote
I like these changes a lot. I would need to see a mathing on the mass change which I am sure will be done shortly. But good set. They are also maybe a bit too cheap still but that is an easy change later I suppose.
Leader of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal.
Creator of Burn Jita
Vile Rat: You're the greatest sociopath that has ever played eve.
|
|
Destoya
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
387
|
Posted - 2015.04.01 23:01:45 -
[11] - Quote
Liking the fitting reqs and mass addition for the entosis links. Should still make small ships viable for capturing structures when nobody is around but entirely removes the problem of troll ceptors which dont fit with the design decisions you are taking. |
Cade Windstalker
Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra
323
|
Posted - 2015.04.01 23:03:49 -
[12] - Quote
Thanks for the prompt responses Fozzie! The warm-up cycle being new for every ship is especially important since it seriously changes the math in contesting a sov site, effectively doubling the time you need to keep an Entosis link up from a single ship in order to make progress.
Super excited for this to get up on the Test Server. I'm hoping we can give some current Eve FCs the reigns on some Mass Tests as a way of putting these mechanics through their paces and finding as many potential issues as possible. |
Saidin Thor
The Odin Conspiracy
53
|
Posted - 2015.04.01 23:10:56 -
[13] - Quote
It's really satisfying that, unlike certain other proposals where "we'll take feedback into account, we promise" and nothing changed from the original proposal, these changes combined with the IHub and upgrade changes REALLY curtail a lot of the problems people saw with the original proposal.
The only thing that might still be concerning is the ability for ewar to have a disproportionate effect on halting capture progress. I think it would be nice if the "warm-up" period could be skipped if the module stays active (although you only make progress while the target is locked, say), but in practice I think this will really be an edge case that won't come into play the majority of the time. Overall these changes are very satisfying. |
Troyd23
Repercussus Goonswarm Federation
65
|
Posted - 2015.04.01 23:13:37 -
[14] - Quote
Quote:Capital ships have a role bonus that increases the module cycle time by 5x
Forgive me here,
Considering you're a flying brick with this active and can't receive remote assistance. What is the advantage of having a longer entosis cycle time? Is this the new 10 min siege cycle :) |
Albert Madullier
Pan Intergalactic Industries
17
|
Posted - 2015.04.01 23:14:56 -
[15] - Quote
so just leave it offline until your ceptor reaches the target system then online it |
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans
2187
|
Posted - 2015.04.01 23:15:21 -
[16] - Quote
Albert Madullier wrote:so just leave it offline until your ceptor reaches the target system then online it And then die when anything shows up. |
Cade Windstalker
Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra
323
|
Posted - 2015.04.01 23:16:15 -
[17] - Quote
Troyd23 wrote:Quote:Capital ships have a role bonus that increases the module cycle time by 5x Forgive me here, Considering you're a flying brick with this active and can't receive remote assistance. What is the advantage of having a longer entosis cycle time? Is this the new 10 min siege cycle :)
It isn't an advantage, it's a penalty. In this case the idea is that a Capital has to be without remote assistance for longer to make up for the fact that capitals are very hard to kill and there's no restriction on throwing a Carrier into Triage or a Dread into Siege Mode while you're using an Entosis Link. |
Anhenka
Infinite Point Nulli Secunda
1336
|
Posted - 2015.04.01 23:17:18 -
[18] - Quote
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.
The mass addition is also underwhelming, since even the example stilleto has a Mass of 1,000,000 kg normally and 1,500,000 with a MWD running. +250,000 KG is only a minor decrease in maneuverability and acceleration when it's time to abandon the offense and burn away.
Thank you for making the t2 unable to be fit on an interceptor easily though, that was definitely needed. |
Troyd23
Repercussus Goonswarm Federation
65
|
Posted - 2015.04.01 23:18:03 -
[19] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote:Troyd23 wrote:Quote:Capital ships have a role bonus that increases the module cycle time by 5x Forgive me here, Considering you're a flying brick with this active and can't receive remote assistance. What is the advantage of having a longer entosis cycle time? Is this the new 10 min siege cycle :) It isn't an advantage, it's a penalty. In this case the idea is that a Capital has to be without remote assistance for longer to make up for the fact that capitals are very hard to kill and there's no restriction on throwing a Carrier into Triage or a Dread into Siege Mode while you're using an Entosis Link.
That's fair, I guess the stock terminology "Role Bonus" implies an advantage. (Which it typically does) |
Albert Madullier
Pan Intergalactic Industries
17
|
Posted - 2015.04.01 23:18:14 -
[20] - Quote
Rowells wrote:Albert Madullier wrote:so just leave it offline until your ceptor reaches the target system then online it And then die when anything shows up.
most allliances aren't that clever, they'll sit there and ping + have 1hr form up and by that time the ceptor has done its job
|
|
Troyd23
Repercussus Goonswarm Federation
65
|
Posted - 2015.04.01 23:18:28 -
[21] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote:Troyd23 wrote:Quote:Capital ships have a role bonus that increases the module cycle time by 5x Forgive me here, Considering you're a flying brick with this active and can't receive remote assistance. What is the advantage of having a longer entosis cycle time? Is this the new 10 min siege cycle :) It isn't an advantage, it's a penalty. In this case the idea is that a Capital has to be without remote assistance for longer to make up for the fact that capitals are very hard to kill and there's no restriction on throwing a Carrier into Triage or a Dread into Siege Mode while you're using an Entosis Link.
That's fair, I guess the stock terminology "Role Bonus" implies an advantage. (Which it typically does)
So basically, this will discourage the use of capitals for structure warfare. This continues to give weight and reason for them to be used as serious fleet support ships in the future meta. |
Cade Windstalker
Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra
323
|
Posted - 2015.04.01 23:20:18 -
[22] - Quote
Albert Madullier wrote:Rowells wrote:Albert Madullier wrote:so just leave it offline until your ceptor reaches the target system then online it And then die when anything shows up. most allliances aren't that clever, they'll sit there and ping + have 1hr form up and by that time the ceptor has done its job
Any Alliance that is that lacking in 'cleverness' deserves to lose their space.
Anyone else remember the epic Fail-scade that was Atlas? |
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans
2188
|
Posted - 2015.04.01 23:21:21 -
[23] - Quote
Albert Madullier wrote:Rowells wrote:Albert Madullier wrote:so just leave it offline until your ceptor reaches the target system then online it And then die when anything shows up. most allliances aren't that clever, they'll sit there and ping + have 1hr form up and by that time the ceptor has done its job sounds like thats their own problem. |
Coelomate
The Suicide Kings Black Legion.
45
|
Posted - 2015.04.01 23:21:43 -
[24] - Quote
These changes look great!
Love,
~Coelomate
|
Vincent Athena
V.I.C.E.
3259
|
Posted - 2015.04.01 23:22:38 -
[25] - Quote
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.
Know a Frozen fan? Check this out
Frozen fanfiction
|
Vincent Athena
V.I.C.E.
3259
|
Posted - 2015.04.01 23:25:44 -
[26] - Quote
Troyd23 wrote:Cade Windstalker wrote:Troyd23 wrote:Quote:Capital ships have a role bonus that increases the module cycle time by 5x Forgive me here, Considering you're a flying brick with this active and can't receive remote assistance. What is the advantage of having a longer entosis cycle time? Is this the new 10 min siege cycle :) It isn't an advantage, it's a penalty. In this case the idea is that a Capital has to be without remote assistance for longer to make up for the fact that capitals are very hard to kill and there's no restriction on throwing a Carrier into Triage or a Dread into Siege Mode while you're using an Entosis Link. That's fair, I guess the stock terminology "Role Bonus" implies an advantage. (Which it typically does) So basically, this will discourage the use of capitals for structure warfare. This continues to give weight and reason for them to be used as serious fleet support ships in the future meta. It will discourage capital use for Entosis links. They can still be used to kill those pesky battleships. You know, the ones that are killing your cruisers that have your T2 Entosis lings fitted.
Know a Frozen fan? Check this out
Frozen fanfiction
|
Anthar Thebess
991
|
Posted - 2015.04.01 23:27:33 -
[27] - Quote
Can we make dedicated fuel for this module. I know - strontium is there , but the need of making different fuel and shipping it is also something you need to take into consideration.
Strontium is already used in carrier triage , dread siege, towers so every one have stacked it everywhere.
My suggestion add BPO for this fuel that will combine : - PI 1 materials - Moon Gases / some R8 materials? - Strontium
It can be heavy as stront , but adding additional level of logistics can be very interesting.
For example. 2 Forces fight over the system.
Both are running low on strontium.
Side A, needs to go 10j to get supply from the station. Local's just go to first tower in the system and pull some strontium out.
If we have dedicated fuel then both sides needs to transport it from some distant locations - so gate camps will be also important.
What about stalemate? So 2 links activated at the same time , 1 offensive ( Loki) 1 defensive ( archon).
Capital Remote AID Rebalance
Way to solve important nullsec issue. CSM members do your work.
|
Cade Windstalker
Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra
323
|
Posted - 2015.04.01 23:29:52 -
[28] - Quote
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.
Agreed that this makes a bit more sense to me, though there is also potential for confusion with Small and Large Tractor Beams, the latter of which are Capital modules. That said the T1/T2 distinction seems to fit even worse so... |
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans
2188
|
Posted - 2015.04.01 23:31:45 -
[29] - Quote
Anthar Thebess wrote:What about stalemate? So 2 links activated at the same time , 1 offensive ( Loki) 1 defensive ( archon). So, whats your question? |
Valtaric
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1
|
Posted - 2015.04.01 23:32:03 -
[30] - Quote
Will it be possible to MJD with an entosis link active? |
|
Cade Windstalker
Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra
323
|
Posted - 2015.04.01 23:32:30 -
[31] - Quote
Anthar Thebess wrote:Can we make dedicated fuel for this module. I know - strontium is there , but the need of making different fuel and shipping it is also something you need to take into consideration.
Strontium is already used in carrier triage , dread siege, towers so every one have stacked it everywhere.
My suggestion add BPO for this fuel that will combine : - PI 1 materials - Moon Gases / some R8 materials? - Strontium
It can be heavy as stront , but adding additional level of logistics can be very interesting.
For example. 2 Forces fight over the system.
Both are running low on strontium.
Side A, needs to go 10j to get supply from the station. Local's just go to first tower in the system and pull some strontium out.
If we have dedicated fuel then both sides needs to transport it from some distant locations - so gate camps will be also important.
What about stalemate? So 2 links activated at the same time , 1 offensive ( Loki) 1 defensive ( archon).
I see where you're coming from, but I think the end result would just be stockpiling this "Element X Fuel" everywhere too, as a defensive measure.
I think the point of the Strontium is to make it harder for an attacker who can't actually dislodge the defender to keep pressing their attack. The idea being that if the attacker can't force a win the defender deserves the successful defense. A sort of "ties go to the defender" setup. |
Xe'Cara'eos
A Big Enough Lever
234
|
Posted - 2015.04.01 23:33:02 -
[32] - Quote
I would suggest that the home advantage of having your stront a single warp away instead of 10-20 jps is a good one as for the mass changes..... I think I really like this! same for the PG and CPU requirements
I still think CCP ought to consider allowing entosis users to recieve cap transfer, and e-support
but these seem to be looking more sensible now, Fozzie - good job!
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.
|
Cade Windstalker
Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra
323
|
Posted - 2015.04.01 23:33:41 -
[33] - Quote
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) |
Valtaric
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1
|
Posted - 2015.04.01 23:34:57 -
[34] - Quote
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 (and a MJD breaks all of your current target locks when it successfully goes off)
MJD doesn't break your locks. Your locks only break if you MJD out of range. But that's good to know. |
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans
2188
|
Posted - 2015.04.01 23:35:30 -
[35] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote:(and a MJD breaks all of your current target locks when it successfully goes off) iirc it doesnt break locks unless you are out of lock range, it doesnt break locks that are being used on you either. |
Vaju Enki
Secular Wisdom
1463
|
Posted - 2015.04.01 23:41:57 -
[36] - Quote
Good change.
The Tears Must Flow
|
Vincent Athena
V.I.C.E.
3260
|
Posted - 2015.04.01 23:42:37 -
[37] - Quote
I'm not sure I understand the entire capture timer thing. Lets say I fly up to a structure, activate my E-link. It cycles once, then starts its second cycle. 1.5 minutes into that second cycle a SB shows up and makes me go boom. There is now 1.5 minutes on the capture timer? What happens to that timer if nothing is done by anyone for the next week? Does that 1.5 minutes persist until someone uses another E-link? Does it decay back toward zero, or what? I assume if the enemy now uses a E-link on the structure, it will drive the timer down? Can everyone see how much time is on the capture timer? Anything special needed to see the timer?
Know a Frozen fan? Check this out
Frozen fanfiction
|
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
2064
|
Posted - 2015.04.01 23:50:41 -
[38] - Quote
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.
yeah I like the sounds of that better... heck why not have a medium version too that fits well on crusiers/bc and the large version is meant for battleships.
There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people...
CCP Goliath wrote:
Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.
|
Cade Windstalker
Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra
323
|
Posted - 2015.04.02 00:11:32 -
[39] - Quote
So, the more I look at these changes the more I think that part of the intent is that you not be really able to successfully capture against a large force while they're still on grid, at least not easily. As Fozzie has stated, the side that captures should be the side that holds the grid. So from the sound of things that's what you're going to have to do to progress the capture timer.
This should have a rather interesting effect on the 30-40 minute timers/sites where the defenders and attackers both have ample time to shift forces around and reinforce over the course of a single fight, let alone the larger contest for the various nodes. |
Dominionix
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
61
|
Posted - 2015.04.02 00:13:14 -
[40] - Quote
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? |
|
Saisin
State War Academy Caldari State
234
|
Posted - 2015.04.02 00:13:33 -
[41] - Quote
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.
"surrender your ego, be free". innuendo.
solo? There is a new hope...
|
Cade Windstalker
Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra
324
|
Posted - 2015.04.02 00:17:25 -
[42] - Quote
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
ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans
2189
|
Posted - 2015.04.02 00:20:55 -
[43] - Quote
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
SnaiLs aNd FroGs
33
|
Posted - 2015.04.02 00:25:16 -
[44] - Quote
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... |
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
12388
|
Posted - 2015.04.02 00:46:47 -
[45] - Quote
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.
|
Cade Windstalker
Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra
324
|
Posted - 2015.04.02 00:54:55 -
[46] - Quote
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
SnaiLs aNd FroGs
33
|
Posted - 2015.04.02 01:07:49 -
[47] - Quote
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 DARKNESS.
50
|
Posted - 2015.04.02 01:17:51 -
[48] - Quote
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
Crimson Serpent Syndicate Heiian Conglomerate
497
|
Posted - 2015.04.02 01:34:34 -
[49] - Quote
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
Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra
324
|
Posted - 2015.04.02 01:38:40 -
[50] - Quote
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
Enlightened Industries Goonswarm Federation
5
|
Posted - 2015.04.02 02:10:38 -
[51] - Quote
1 stront per cycle is a bit low, should be a minimum of 10. |
Lienzo
Amanuensis
69
|
Posted - 2015.04.02 02:38:50 -
[52] - Quote
Perhaps the effectiveness could be attenuated with distance from the node. Basically a falloff mechanism. |
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans
2190
|
Posted - 2015.04.02 03:30:06 -
[53] - Quote
Zazad Antollare wrote:1 stront per cycle is a bit low, should be a minimum of 10. why do you think that? |
PinkKnife
Raising the Bar Of Sound Mind
515
|
Posted - 2015.04.02 03:32:52 -
[54] - Quote
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
ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans
2190
|
Posted - 2015.04.02 03:47:17 -
[55] - Quote
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
Fistful of Finns Triumvirate.
495
|
Posted - 2015.04.02 04:12:56 -
[56] - Quote
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
ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans
2190
|
Posted - 2015.04.02 04:46:11 -
[57] - Quote
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
6
|
Posted - 2015.04.02 04:48:38 -
[58] - Quote
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
ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans
2190
|
Posted - 2015.04.02 04:55:01 -
[59] - Quote
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
Awakened Ones
86
|
Posted - 2015.04.02 04:58:01 -
[60] - Quote
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
|
|
Altrue
Exploration Frontier inc Brave Collective
1700
|
Posted - 2015.04.02 05:13:24 -
[61] - Quote
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?
Signature Tanking Best Tanking
Exploration Frontier Inc [Ex-F] CEO - BRAVE - Eve-guides.fr
|
Aiyshimin
Fistful of Finns Triumvirate.
495
|
Posted - 2015.04.02 05:22:00 -
[62] - Quote
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
Killers of Paranoid Souls Universal Paranoia Alliance
20
|
Posted - 2015.04.02 06:32:20 -
[63] - Quote
Nicely done fozzie . + 1 from me. |
FearlessLittleToaster
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
37
|
Posted - 2015.04.02 06:55:09 -
[64] - Quote
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
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
596
|
Posted - 2015.04.02 06:57:18 -
[65] - Quote
double post~ |
xttz
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
596
|
Posted - 2015.04.02 07:03:10 -
[66] - Quote
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
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
3206
|
Posted - 2015.04.02 07:09:49 -
[67] - Quote
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)
Post on the Eve-o forums with a Goonswarm Federation character that drinking bleach is bad for you, and 20 forum warriors will hospitalise themselves trying to prove you wrong.
|
kidkoma
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
24
|
Posted - 2015.04.02 08:06:23 -
[68] - Quote
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.
923
|
Posted - 2015.04.02 09:50:59 -
[69] - Quote
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
Hedion University Amarr Empire
106
|
Posted - 2015.04.02 09:57:31 -
[70] - Quote
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.
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.
( -í° -£-û -í°)
|
|
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans
2190
|
Posted - 2015.04.02 10:01:24 -
[71] - Quote
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
Atztech Inc. Ixtab.
132
|
Posted - 2015.04.02 10:17:42 -
[72] - Quote
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.
923
|
Posted - 2015.04.02 10:27:15 -
[73] - Quote
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
Svea Rike Fatal Ascension
45
|
Posted - 2015.04.02 10:28:10 -
[74] - Quote
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?
CEO Svea Rike
|
Iroquoiss Pliskin
Hedion University Amarr Empire
107
|
Posted - 2015.04.02 10:30:39 -
[75] - Quote
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. (a+ç -á-¦ -ƒ+ä-£ -í-¦)a+ç
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.
P.S. I have a Cpt. Picard .jpeg awaiting, if this turns out to be Dread-only warfare.
( -í° -£-û -í°)
|
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
1005
|
Posted - 2015.04.02 10:33:36 -
[76] - Quote
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 highs full of entosis mods for the extra mass (every little helps right) and other odd uses. Feels like you've done this to limit fast aligns, but the whole offlining the mod negates this completely. |
Aran Hotchkiss
Phoibe Enterprises
79
|
Posted - 2015.04.02 10:38:19 -
[77] - Quote
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.
Shamelessly stole this line,
Alternatively, QFT
One of the bitter points of a good bittervet is the realisation that all those SP don't really do much, and that the newbie is having much more fun with what little he has. - Tippia
|
Xindi Kraid
Itsukame-Zainou Hyperspatial Inquiries Ltd.
923
|
Posted - 2015.04.02 10:46:05 -
[78] - Quote
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
304
|
Posted - 2015.04.02 10:49:19 -
[79] - Quote
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
Phoibe Enterprises
79
|
Posted - 2015.04.02 10:58:38 -
[80] - Quote
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)
Shamelessly stole this line,
Alternatively, QFT
One of the bitter points of a good bittervet is the realisation that all those SP don't really do much, and that the newbie is having much more fun with what little he has. - Tippia
|
|
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
1005
|
Posted - 2015.04.02 11:12:10 -
[81] - Quote
Aran Hotchkiss wrote: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)
Sorry, I dont follow? |
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
5085
|
Posted - 2015.04.02 11:31:45 -
[82] - Quote
afkalt wrote:Aran Hotchkiss wrote: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) Sorry, I dont follow?
One entosis link per ship. It's the second point of the restrictions.
Woo! CSM X!
Fuzzwork Enterprises
Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter
|
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
5085
|
Posted - 2015.04.02 11:34:07 -
[83] - Quote
Galphii wrote: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.
Remember that the T2 version cycles significantly faster than the T1 version. And that it's time dependant, rather than number of cycle dependant.
So 10 minutes (minimum capture time, after the initial warm up) would be (with your suggestion) 4 Stront for the T1 version, and 25 for the T2.
Woo! CSM X!
Fuzzwork Enterprises
Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter
|
Veskrashen
Justified Chaos Spaceship Bebop
854
|
Posted - 2015.04.02 11:34:29 -
[84] - Quote
That's a pretty nice set of changes, and neatly deals with a lot of the issues raised in the previous two threads.
The mass increase in particular was very slick in terms of limiting max speed of long range / kiting doctrines while not arbitrarily making them utterly infeasible. Keeping T1 links viable on Interceptors is a good choice, though I feel that limiting them to 30km range might be too much. 50km for the T1 links would open a lot more options for small ship doctrines, as controlling a 30km sphere is child's play in brawling frigates even against kiting frigate comps. 50-60km forces brawling frigate comps to make different choices to ensure they've got enough of an engagement envelope to counter kiting comps.
Stats on the T2 / Large (+1 on the idea to rename them) seem good, the cap use / grid of the T2/ Large should force folks who want to use them on small ships to make significant sacrifices to do so, which is good.
I don't see the point of using Stront to fuel these, especially at these low levels. Resupply is trivial for anyone with half a brain, even small ships can run these for hours. As other posters have said, it adds no interesting gameplay. It seems like the stat chlarifications - particularly for the T2/Large Entosis Link - force enough fitting sacrifice that a fuel requirement isn't really needed. Either make the fuel use high enough to impose a significant logistic burden - which gives the advantage to larger / more organized groups - or remove it entirely IMO.
We Gallente have a saying: "CCP created the Gallente Militia to train the Fighters..."
|
Arkon Olacar
Bearded BattleBears Brave Collective
531
|
Posted - 2015.04.02 11:39:24 -
[85] - Quote
Question: if you lose a lock on the structure in question but the module remains active, ie through damps or jams, is the capture progress paused at the moment lock is dropped, or at the end of the cycle?
One way around the concerns about jamming would be to allow the cycle to finish contributing to the capture progress despite losing lock, unless the ship is destroyed. The jammed ship would then need to retarget the structure and then have another 'warmup' cycle before it can begin to make an impact again, but at least the entire 2/5 minute cycle would contribute to the capture progress. Destroying the ship should always pause progress immediatly.
Warping to zero
|
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
1005
|
Posted - 2015.04.02 11:46:18 -
[86] - Quote
Steve Ronuken wrote:afkalt wrote:Aran Hotchkiss wrote: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) Sorry, I dont follow? One entosis link per ship. It's the second point of the restrictions.
I missed that.
Head>desk. |
xttz
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
596
|
Posted - 2015.04.02 11:50:23 -
[87] - Quote
Has it been explained how exactly pausing will work?
For example, if a structure was 50% contested when all attacking ships are jammed / destroyed, but no defensive Entosis link as applied to it, how long will it remain at 50%? Indefinitely? Until the end of the prime time window? |
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
1005
|
Posted - 2015.04.02 11:53:04 -
[88] - Quote
xttz wrote:Has it been explained how exactly pausing will work?
For example, if a structure was 50% contested when all attacking ships are jammed / destroyed, but no defensive Entosis link as applied to it, how long will it remain at 50%? Indefinitely? Until the end of the prime time window?
From the last thread and if my memory serves, it will remain at this value (i.e. vulnerable) until flipped or fully controlled and this vulnerability will continue PAST the window. |
chelly Dian
Shadow State Fatal Ascension
12
|
Posted - 2015.04.02 11:53:34 -
[89] - Quote
Not bad changes - moving to better.
Woudl like to see it on SiSi to make final decision. |
xttz
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
596
|
Posted - 2015.04.02 12:49:48 -
[90] - Quote
What about size and tech differences? There's enough new stats to add some extra trade-offs.
Small Entosis Link I:
- Requires Infomorph Psychology 1
- +250,000 mass when online
- 5 Minute Cycle Time, 25km range
- 10 PWG, 1 CPU
- 50 Capacitor per cycle
- Consumes 10 Stront per cycle
- Cost ~20m
Small Entosis Link II:
- Requires Infomorph Psychology 4
- +225,000 mass when online
- 5 Minute Cycle Time, 35km range
- 12 PWG, 1 CPU
- 45 Capacitor per cycle
- Consumes 8 Stront per cycle
- Cost ~50m
Standard Entosis Link I:
- Requires Infomorph Psychology 2
- +1,000,000 mass when online
- 2 Minute Cycle Time, 200km range
- 100 PWG, 10 CPU
- 500 Capacitor per cycle
- Consumes 4 Stront per cycle
- Cost ~80m
Standard Entosis Link II:
- Requires Infomorph Psychology 4
- +900,000 mass when online
- 2 Minute Cycle Time, 250km range
- 120 PWG, 10 CPU
- 450 Capacitor per cycle
- Consumes 3 Stront per cycle
- Cost ~120m
|
|
Oh Takashawa
Body Count Inc. Pandemic Legion
84
|
Posted - 2015.04.02 12:55:19 -
[91] - Quote
So the stront here is another thing we'll have to have in cargo of ships, which will prevent ships from being stored in SMAs until it's removed. Can we finally get CCP to look at lifting the restriictions on Ozone (and now Stront) in cargo, as a quality of life measure? |
Arronicus
Fusion Enterprises Ltd Shadow of xXDEATHXx
1493
|
Posted - 2015.04.02 13:00:00 -
[92] - Quote
Rowells wrote:IB4 100pwg 10km/s 250km lock range trollceptor plans
INB4 100pwg 10km/s 250km lock range interceptor with enough cap to run the module is impossible. The mass addition alone was the perfect solution. |
Jenshae Chiroptera
1202
|
Posted - 2015.04.02 13:03:45 -
[93] - Quote
So ... still replacing the satisfaction of shooting the enemies' stuff with waving a magic wand at it?
Still think the psychology of Null Sec players is going to mesh well with Factional Warfare type mechanics?
CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids.
.
High Sec needs a stepping stone to other areas of space, where they can grow.
Fozzie is treating a symptom.
|
Cade Windstalker
Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra
325
|
Posted - 2015.04.02 13:14:18 -
[94] - Quote
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.
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.
There's nothing stopping attackers from running multiple Entosis Links on a structure, or using remote ECCM to make them nearly impossible to jam. Plus the defender has to actually control the grid enough to tick the timer back down or the defense never ends.
Aiyshimin wrote:
- 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?
[/quote]
- What do you mean by Deadspace? They're not gated, if that's what you're asking.
- It's not first to 10 nodes it's 10 net node points. Meaning if you can get 10 more than your opponent you win, but if you get 10 and your opponent got 5 you still need 5 more.
- Yes, but they count as an attacker and they can't actually take Sov, and IIRC from the previous thread they can't use them on nodes for the actual capture event.
- Yes, but no progress is made.
- Hasn't been specified yet
- I would assume so.
- I would assume not, since the Entosis Link cycle prevents cloaking, so there's no need to stop someone from being cloaked next to the node since they can't impact anything while cloaked.
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.
I don't think it's mean to be a major requirement here. Keep in mind this is something that's meant to go on for at least an hour in a well defended system, and every ship starting a link needs one cycle of warmup. For a completely uncontested Node event with full occupancy metrics that's a minimum of 210 Strong using a 'T2' Link.
Also since the event is going to go on for a long time ships are likely to need a lot of ammo in addition to whatever stront they use to capture. If the fuel requirement is pushed too high it goes from being a minor consideration in a long fight to a major hassle to deal with, and makes Amarr ships (with their lack of ammo requirements) the default capture boats since they'd be the only ones able to hold enough Strontium to run a full capture.
Xindi Kraid wrote: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.
Read the original blog post, most of this is answered there. The only thing that isn't is the structure related stuff, because that falls under the Structure revamp. |
Pooptasticize
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
2
|
Posted - 2015.04.02 13:16:14 -
[95] - Quote
One thing that the stront requirement will add is now you can't have a cheap afk brick tanked drone-boat defending a structure all day. |
Cade Windstalker
Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra
326
|
Posted - 2015.04.02 13:21:06 -
[96] - Quote
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?
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?
Capitals don't take 5 times as long, they just cycle for five times as long. It's not number of cycles it's time spent cycling. So a Carrier with a t2 will have a 10 minute warm-up cycle and then takes the same amount of actual time to perform a capture as any other ship, it just does it in 'fewer cycles' but as a result is also vulnerable for longer.
The defender doesn't need to run their links as long as the attacker. Check the blog post for timer mechanics. |
Edward Olmops
DUST Expeditionary Team Good Sax
298
|
Posted - 2015.04.02 13:21:36 -
[97] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:T1 Entosis Link:
- Requires Infomorph Psychology 1
- +250,000 mass when online
- 5 Minute Cycle Time, 25km range
- 10 PWG, 1 CPU
- 50 Capacitor per cycle (0.1666 cap/s)
- Consumes 1 Stront per cycle
T2 Entosis Link:
- Requires Infomorph Psychology 4
- +1,000,000 mass when online
- 2 Minute Cycle Time, 250km range
- 100 PWG, 10 CPU
- 500 Capacitor per cycle (4.166 cap/s)
- Consumes 1 Stront per cycle
The stats for the T1 and T2 Version are completely different. Why don't you make two different T1 versions (like "Entosis Link" vs "Long Range Entosis Link" or "Focussed Entosis Link") ? This would be way more fitting to the pattern all other modules show.
What you present here as a T2 Version is not a slightly more advanced Version of the T1 module, but something completely different. It's meant partially for different hulls (PG requirement & mass) and different tactics (range & cycle time).
This would be the same as if Railguns somehow were the T2 version of Blasters...
Just saying as I don't get the reasoning behind it. |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
6679
|
Posted - 2015.04.02 13:51:29 -
[98] - Quote
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:So ... still replacing the satisfaction of shooting the enemies' stuff with waving a magic wand at it? Still think the psychology of Null Sec players is going to mesh well with Factional Warfare type mechanics? Nah it's sorta ok you're not grinding through EHP but EntosisHitPoints
^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears.
Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
|
Berluth Luthian
Hoplite Brigade
202
|
Posted - 2015.04.02 13:57:45 -
[99] - Quote
A carrier in triage with EWAR immunity is a link that won't be broken unless capped out or killed. You can then target the enemy and damp/jam through their whole fleet while your triage link remains.
The question I don't know if I've seen answered is whether a warm up cycle cancels enemy entosis progress? |
Azure and Argent
Enlightened Industries Goonswarm Federation
0
|
Posted - 2015.04.02 13:59:43 -
[100] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:The powergrid requirements for the T2 version are indeed difficult for frigates and destroyers. The T1 version is a much more viable option for frigates, but yes this mean we would expect ships of cruiser size or higher to have a lot of importance in contested sov warfare.
I'm glad to see you've decided to ignore whatever idiot came up with this line.
Quote: This also means that we don't want to be using the Entosis Links to intentionally manipulate ship use. We've seen some people suggesting that we restrict Entosis Links to battleships, command ships or capital ships in order to buff those classes. Using the Entosis Link mechanics to artificially skew the meta in that way is not something we are interested in doing. |
|
Agent Unknown
Night Theifs
39
|
Posted - 2015.04.02 13:59:45 -
[101] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote:
There's nothing stopping attackers from running multiple Entosis Links on a structure, or using remote ECCM to make them nearly impossible to jam. Plus the defender has to actually control the grid enough to tick the timer back down or the defense never ends.
No remote assistance is allowed, so that includes remote ECCM. The ship using the link would have to stack ECCM on its own (thus gimping its fit). |
Wanda Fayne
Gurlz with Gunz
66
|
Posted - 2015.04.02 14:29:10 -
[102] - Quote
+1 to the changes.
cue up Marauder training...nice to see BS useage back in the mix |
Iroquoiss Pliskin
Hedion University Amarr Empire
112
|
Posted - 2015.04.02 14:41:00 -
[103] - Quote
Wanda Fayne wrote:+1 to the changes. cue up Marauder training...nice to see BS useage back in the mix
Battleships... albeit Tech 2 with carrier price tag and 1/10 the insurance payout.
/Not sure yet.
( -í° -£-û -í°)
|
Tikktokk Tokkzikk
Alekhine's Gun The Periphery
207
|
Posted - 2015.04.02 14:49:31 -
[104] - Quote
What is the volume of Entosis LInks? Will I be able to bring a depot and entosis link on my roaming ship to disable upgrades and such?
Also why the mass penalty? If I understand correctly, a Maulus can counter an infinite amount of trollceptors by breaking their lock once, forcing them to do a warmup. I'm already sacrificing a highslot and would rather not gimp my fit further with a mass penalty. |
Soldarius
Kosher Nostra The 99 Percent
1227
|
Posted - 2015.04.02 15:04:26 -
[105] - Quote
Steve Ronuken wrote:Galphii wrote: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. Remember that the T2 version cycles significantly faster than the T1 version. And that it's time dependant, rather than number of cycle dependant. So 10 minutes (minimum capture time, after the initial warm up) would be (with your suggestion) 4 Stront for the T1 version, and 25 for the T2.
Ah, the shorter cycle time isn't necessarily a good thing since it will end up costing more than 6x the fuel. That's some really interesting interaction.
I'm pretty please with what has been laid out here. And depite not being limited to CBCs, people may still use them because cheap, tanky, and utility high slot.
Or they will just use Ishtars.
http://youtu.be/YVkUvmDQ3HY
|
Wanda Fayne
Gurlz with Gunz
67
|
Posted - 2015.04.02 15:05:18 -
[106] - Quote
Iroquoiss Pliskin wrote:Wanda Fayne wrote:+1 to the changes. cue up Marauder training...nice to see BS useage back in the mix Battleships... albeit Tech 2 with carrier price tag and 1/10 the insurance payout. /Not sure yet.
A quick theorycraft reveals that the t2 entosis link can be fitted to AF's (did the Ishkur) with a gimpy fitting and Lvl5 skills.
[Ishkur, test]
3x Sensor Booster II (Targeting Range Script)
3x Reactor Control Unit II
2x Small Ancillary Current Router II
(1x t2 Entosis Link)
55x Strontium Clathrates
targeting range = 194km
|
Cade Windstalker
Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra
327
|
Posted - 2015.04.02 15:08:06 -
[107] - Quote
Berluth Luthian wrote:The question I don't know if I've seen answered is whether a warm up cycle cancels enemy entosis progress?
Good point, I'd love to see this answered as well.
Agent Unknown wrote:No remote assistance is allowed, so that includes remote ECCM. The ship using the link would have to stack ECCM on its own (thus gimping its fit).
Woops, point, my mistake there. My point about a Triage Carrier stands though.
Tikktokk Tokkzikk wrote:Also why the mass penalty? If I understand correctly, a Maulus can counter an infinite amount of trollceptors by breaking their lock once, forcing them to do a warmup. I'm already sacrificing a highslot and would rather not gimp my fit further with a mass penalty.
There were significant concerns that Interceptors and other fast ships would be able to troll Sov without significant consequences, just running around and spamming an Alliance with defense call mails and generally making a nuisance of themselves. It would be easy to stop them from actually capturing anything but without the ability to actually kill them you need to baby-sit your sov structures for four hours during peak play times every day, and no one wants that.
Wanda Fayne wrote:A quick theorycraft reveals that the t2 entosis link can be fitted to AF's (did the Ishkur) with a gimpy fitting and Lvl5 skills.
[Ishkur, test]
3x Sensor Booster II (Targeting Range Script)
3x Reactor Control Unit II
2x Small Ancillary Current Router II
(1x t2 Entosis Link)
55x Strontium Clathrates
targeting range = 194km
I don't really see this as a problem. This isn't a ship it's a flying Entosis Link, which means it will be ridiculously easy to hunt down and kill. |
Soldarius
Kosher Nostra The 99 Percent
1227
|
Posted - 2015.04.02 15:13:06 -
[108] - Quote
Wanda Fayne wrote:Iroquoiss Pliskin wrote:Wanda Fayne wrote:+1 to the changes. cue up Marauder training...nice to see BS useage back in the mix Battleships... albeit Tech 2 with carrier price tag and 1/10 the insurance payout. /Not sure yet. A quick theorycraft reveals that the t2 entosis link can be fitted to AF's (did the Ishkur) with a gimpy fitting and Lvl5 skills. [Ishkur, test] 3x Sensor Booster II (Targeting Range Script) 3x Reactor Control Unit II 2x Small Ancillary Current Router II (1x t2 Entosis Link) 55x Strontium Clathrates targeting range = 194km
The only reason to do that is to use the link at long range. Damps will still likely break his lock, screwing him over for the entirety of his currently remaining cycle and another one on top of that.
http://youtu.be/YVkUvmDQ3HY
|
Wanda Fayne
Gurlz with Gunz
67
|
Posted - 2015.04.02 15:15:34 -
[109] - Quote
Soldarius wrote:Wanda Fayne wrote: A quick theorycraft reveals that the t2 entosis link can be fitted to AF's (did the Ishkur) with a gimpy fitting and Lvl5 skills.
[Ishkur, test]
3x Sensor Booster II (Targeting Range Script)
3x Reactor Control Unit II
2x Small Ancillary Current Router II
(1x t2 Entosis Link)
55x Strontium Clathrates
targeting range = 194km
The only reason to do that is to use the link at long range. Damps will still likely break his lock, screwing him over for the entirety of his currently remaining cycle and another one on top of that.
True. It's just crafting to see what the minimum ship hull could be used for t2 |
Elenahina
agony unleashed Agony Empire
388
|
Posted - 2015.04.02 15:25:37 -
[110] - Quote
Wanda Fayne wrote:Soldarius wrote:Wanda Fayne wrote: A quick theorycraft reveals that the t2 entosis link can be fitted to AF's (did the Ishkur) with a gimpy fitting and Lvl5 skills.
[Ishkur, test]
3x Sensor Booster II (Targeting Range Script)
3x Reactor Control Unit II
2x Small Ancillary Current Router II
(1x t2 Entosis Link)
55x Strontium Clathrates
targeting range = 194km
The only reason to do that is to use the link at long range. Damps will still likely break his lock, screwing him over for the entirety of his currently remaining cycle and another one on top of that. True. It's just crafting to see what the minimum ship hull could be used for t2. Interceptors are out, however.
Actually, they're not, but the fit is so gimped it's useless.
I did theory craft a T2 link onto a cap stable Ares. But you only get 40k of lock range, which sort of defeats the purpose.
[Ares, Trollin Ur Sov] Navy Micro Auxiliary Power Core Navy Micro Auxiliary Power Core Navy Micro Auxiliary Power Core Navy Micro Auxiliary Power Core
Small Peroxide Capacitor Power Cell Limited 1MN Microwarpdrive I Small Peroxide Capacitor Power Cell
T2 Entosis Link [empty high slot] [empty high slot]
Small Ancillary Current Router II Small Ancillary Current Router II
At max skills with no implants, you have 542 (enough to fire the link) cap to spare, 16 CPU and 6 Power grid left. Oh and a 6.5 second align. And it's only stable with the link, or the prop mod, not both.
Agony Unleashed is Recruiting - Small Gang PvP in Null Sec
|
|
Sven Viko VIkolander
Friends and Feminists
338
|
Posted - 2015.04.02 15:27:10 -
[111] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:[/list] Now on to the new details. A few players have brought up the idea of putting a fuel use on the Entosis link in our feedback threads, and we discussed the idea further with players at Fanfest. We like the way that fuel use encouraged logistics and supported attacks, and discourages leaving alts logged off behind enemy lines. It also helps break long stalemates in the worst case scenario of neither side being able or willing to engage each other. We're also adding a small flat mass increase that will apply whenever the Entosis link is online (not just when it's active). This will work much like smaller armor plates, where it has a more noticeable effect on smaller ships than on larger ships. Finally, we have the fitting and capacitor costs of the module. Like most other modules, T2 will use more cap and require more fitting than T1. T1 Entosis Link:
- Requires Infomorph Psychology 1
- +250,000 mass when online
- 5 Minute Cycle Time, 25km range
- 10 PWG, 1 CPU
- 50 Capacitor per cycle (0.1666 cap/s)
- Consumes 1 Stront per cycle
T2 Entosis Link:
- Requires Infomorph Psychology 4
- +1,000,000 mass when online
- 2 Minute Cycle Time, 250km range
- 100 PWG, 10 CPU
- 500 Capacitor per cycle (4.166 cap/s)
- Consumes 1 Stront per cycle
As always, nothing is set in stone and we plan to continue discussing this new module and its impacts with you all over the next few months. This thread will be the new focus for discussion of the Entosis Link and its balance, and I hope that you will all let us know what you think of this version of the proposal and its implications. Thanks!
Fozzie, the first thing to remember is that using the entosis link itself is *not* a fun mechanic, even if it might result in fun things (e.g. fights). Having penalties which make it even less fun to be the entosis link pilot (or alt) are a bad foundation to a new sov mechanics. So, I think the Stront requirement by itself is enough to discourage troll entosis use (e.g. entosis pilots logged off until the system is empty or entosis interceptors) and the mass penalty should NOT be used. This point has been made a thousand times by people who do lots of PVP in null: if you cannot counter entosis interceptors ESPECIALLY now that they won't be able to viably fit a T2 link and now that they will need stront in the cargo then you are probably NOT competent enough to hold and defend your sov in null sec.
Second, also for the reasons noted above, the PG/CPU requirements for the t1 entosis link should be changed. 10 PG does NOT fit on any viable frigate or destroyer setup currently in use, which completely contradicts the stated goal of the entosis link to the effect that: "The Entosis Link itself should have the minimum possible effect on what ships and tactics players can choose." A t1 entosis link not fitting on virtually any current frig/destroyer PVP setup (because no real setup has 10 free powergrid) does not fit this goal, and significantly harms small gang sov warfare where every ship in fleet needs to be a viable pvp ship, where the players cannot simply bring 10 dummy entosis alts. I suggest changing the tech 1 entosis link requirements to 1 or 2 PG and 10-15 cpu so that it actually fits on useful frig/dessy setups. |
Vulfen
Snuff Box Snuffed Out
173
|
Posted - 2015.04.02 15:35:58 -
[112] - Quote
I think the entosis link needs to buff the sig radius of the ship using it slightly
This will prevent people using hard to scan T3s to claim the site by sitting at long range so people need to scan you down to get ontop of you.
I think any combat recon ship using the module should show up on DSCAN
Also how will the grid work for the large fights on these places because to people on oposite sides of the entosis link at 250km could possibly be on 2 separate grids if there is a fight going on around it that has adjusted the grid? |
Narku Bourgeoisie Tonisilitis
Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective
1
|
Posted - 2015.04.02 15:37:19 -
[113] - Quote
The T2 version still shouldn't have a range ten times higher than the T1 version; either buff the T1 or nerf the T2 range, imo. Since frigates, and only frigates, will be fitting the T1 version with these huge differences, this is almost an artificial ship-choice nerf like CCP said they'd try to avoid.
I'm not sure how I feel on the 10-minute initial cycle for caps. It mainly means they'll be slower initially, but once they're on field, they're still extremely powerful, and won't discourage capital-exclusive blobs. If CCP also makes them change the timer (10-20%) slower, they'll make it viable to use subcaps alongside caps. |
Deacon Abox
Justified Chaos Spaceship Bebop
482
|
Posted - 2015.04.02 15:42:26 -
[114] - Quote
Milla Goodpussy wrote:go to riot!
or we riot!
Aw look. You got no likes for your pithy post. Seems like most people approve of the changes. So,
No U!
CCP, there are off buttons for ship explosions, missile effects, turret effects, etc. "Immersion" does not seem to be harmed by those. So, [u]please[/u] give us a persisting-áoff button for the jump gate and autoscan visuals.
|
rsantos
Mosquito Squadron Mordus Angels
41
|
Posted - 2015.04.02 15:42:51 -
[115] - Quote
The dirty bloblers have won! Hope you all have fun with the new sov laser cyno fitted to your carriers in 10% TiDi!
|
Wanda Fayne
Gurlz with Gunz
67
|
Posted - 2015.04.02 15:47:49 -
[116] - Quote
Elenahina wrote:Wanda Fayne wrote: True. It's just crafting to see what the minimum ship hull could be used for t2. Interceptors are out, however.
Actually, they're not, but the fit is so gimped it's useless. I did theory craft a T2 link onto a cap stable Ares. But you only get 40k of lock range, which sort of defeats the purpose. [Ares, Trollin Ur Sov] Navy Micro Auxiliary Power Core Navy Micro Auxiliary Power Core Navy Micro Auxiliary Power Core Navy Micro Auxiliary Power Core Small Peroxide Capacitor Power Cell Limited 1MN Microwarpdrive I Small Peroxide Capacitor Power Cell T2 Entosis Link [empty high slot] [empty high slot] Small Ancillary Current Router II Small Ancillary Current Router II At max skills with no implants, you have 542 (enough to fire the link) cap to spare, 16 CPU and 6 Power grid left. Oh and a 6.5 second align. And it's only stable with the link, or the prop mod, not both.
Gotcha
The Tactical Destroyers look to be the smallest hull that isn't gimped into uselessness with the t2 Entosis link. They have the targeting range and speed modes to be useful. Still going to give up that firepower though to make it work. I hope all D3's are released in time for these changes to be worked out.
|
SilentAsTheGrave
Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective
170
|
Posted - 2015.04.02 15:53:16 -
[117] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Consumes 1 Stront per cycle
This is why I love CCP. GÖÑ
Buddy Program: If you sign up with my buddy invite link and subscribe with a valid payment method - I will give you 95% of the going rate for PLEX!
|
Wanda Fayne
Gurlz with Gunz
67
|
Posted - 2015.04.02 15:58:50 -
[118] - Quote
SilentAsTheGrave wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Consumes 1 Stront per cycle This is why I love CCP. GÖÑ
That was your suggestion in the last thread. Well done |
SilentAsTheGrave
Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective
172
|
Posted - 2015.04.02 16:10:09 -
[119] - Quote
Wanda Fayne wrote:SilentAsTheGrave wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Consumes 1 Stront per cycle This is why I love CCP. GÖÑ That was your suggestion in the last thread. Well done Thanks!
There have been some who have been saying this new Entosis Link will be a boost for bumping Machariels in high sec. The way I understand it, you need a valid target for the Entosis Link to activate to get the mass increase. There will not be any of these capture points in high sec so it is a moot point, correct?
Buddy Program: If you sign up with my buddy invite link and subscribe with a valid payment method - I will give you 95% of the going rate for PLEX!
|
Ned Thomas
Signal Cartel EvE-Scout Enclave
1477
|
Posted - 2015.04.02 16:15:35 -
[120] - Quote
Wanda Fayne wrote:
The Tactical Destroyers look to be the smallest hull that isn't gimped into uselessness with the t2 Entosis link. They have the targeting range and speed modes to be useful. Still going to give up that firepower though to make it work. I hope all D3's are released in time for these changes to be worked out.
With the power grid nerfs for the Svipul and Confessor, and assuming that the Jackdaw and Hecate will have similar PG stats, then they'll need to be quite gimped to fit a T2 E-link.
Don't get lost alone - Join Signal Cartel, New Eden's premier haven for explorers!
Onward to Thera with Eve Scout
|
|
Wanda Fayne
Gurlz with Gunz
69
|
Posted - 2015.04.02 16:23:53 -
[121] - Quote
Ned Thomas wrote:Wanda Fayne wrote:
The Tactical Destroyers look to be the smallest hull that isn't gimped into uselessness with the t2 Entosis link. They have the targeting range and speed modes to be useful. Still going to give up that firepower though to make it work. I hope all D3's are released in time for these changes to be worked out.
With the power grid nerfs for the Svipul and Confessor, and assuming that the Jackdaw and Hecate will have similar PG stats, then they'll need to be quite gimped to fit a T2 E-link.
Until they are all on the table we can only speculate. In any event, they will need some gimping for the T2 link. It is the advantage of the mode switches (Sharpshooter/Propulsion) which will allow them to be (hopefully) useable. Nice big cargo bay for the fuel though. |
M1k3y Koontz
Aether Ventures Surely You're Joking
741
|
Posted - 2015.04.02 16:24:45 -
[122] - Quote
Zazad Antollare wrote:1 stront per cycle is a bit low, should be a minimum of 10.
3 m3 per cycle, you need up to 21 cycles to RF a well occupied system with a T2 entosis link, thats 63m3 right there. Count in cap boosters to keep that local tank alive in the face of neuts, and that's going to be one packed cargo bay.
One stront isn't bad, 30m3 per cycle (times a minimum of four cycles if the system is entirely undefended and you're using a T1 link) would be out of reach of combat ships. Aside from capitals. Which is the opposite of the point of this change.
How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp.
|
M1k3y Koontz
Aether Ventures Surely You're Joking
741
|
Posted - 2015.04.02 16:32:23 -
[123] - Quote
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:So ... still replacing the satisfaction of shooting the enemies' stuff with waving a magic wand at it? Still think the psychology of Null Sec players is going to mesh well with Factional Warfare type mechanics?
If you don't like it you can leave nullsec. I, for one, am happy to no longer spend hours watching a cloud of drones tick HP down on a structure that nobody can be arsed to defend.
How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp.
|
Anhenka
Infinite Point Nulli Secunda
1343
|
Posted - 2015.04.02 16:32:50 -
[124] - Quote
M1k3y Koontz wrote:Zazad Antollare wrote:1 stront per cycle is a bit low, should be a minimum of 10. 3 m3 per cycle, you need up to 21 cycles to RF a well occupied system with a T2 entosis link, thats 63m3 right there. Count in cap boosters to keep that local tank alive in the face of neuts, and that's going to be one packed cargo bay. One stront isn't bad, 30m3 per cycle (times a minimum of four cycles if the system is entirely undefended and you're using a T1 link) would be out of reach of combat ships. Aside from capitals. Which is the opposite of the point of this change.
Frontline systems are unlikely to be "well occupied". I wouldn't expect the typical system being fought over to be more than 5/2/1 on Strat/Mil/Indy.
Calculations based on 5/5/5 are incredibly unrealistic if that's what you were using.
I do agree that 10 is a bit much, I'd say go with 4 for the t1 version and 3 for the t2. |
Cade Windstalker
Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra
329
|
Posted - 2015.04.02 16:52:10 -
[125] - Quote
Anhenka wrote:Frontline systems are unlikely to be "well occupied". I wouldn't expect the typical system being fought over to be more than 5/2/1 on Strat/Mil/Indy.
Calculations based on 5/5/5 are incredibly unrealistic if that's what you were using.
I do agree that 10 is a bit much, I'd say go with 4 for the t1 version and 3 for the t2.
We can't say for sure that that's going to be unrealistic. Also the emphasis from the mechanics seems to be on attacking and taking entire constellations.
Plus there could be entire ops and gameplay aspects that arise around the idea of fortifying your border systems and making them harder to take by boosting those indices. At the end of the day its up to the owners of a system how high they get their indicies and therefore up to them how hard the system is to defend, so theory crafting with higher timer levels isn't at all unrealistic so long as it's not the only thing people focus on. |
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
2065
|
Posted - 2015.04.02 16:53:51 -
[126] - Quote
xttz wrote:What about size and tech differences? There's enough new stats to add some extra trade-offs. Small Entosis Link I:
- Requires Infomorph Psychology 1
- +250,000 mass when online
- 5 Minute Cycle Time, 25km range
- 10 PWG, 1 CPU
- 50 Capacitor per cycle
- Consumes 10 Stront per cycle
- Cost ~20m
Small Entosis Link II:
- Requires Infomorph Psychology 4
- +225,000 mass when online
- 5 Minute Cycle Time, 35km range
- 12 PWG, 1 CPU
- 45 Capacitor per cycle
- Consumes 8 Stront per cycle
- Cost ~50m
Standard Entosis Link I:
- Requires Infomorph Psychology 2
- +1,000,000 mass when online
- 2 Minute Cycle Time, 200km range
- 100 PWG, 10 CPU
- 500 Capacitor per cycle
- Consumes 4 Stront per cycle
- Cost ~80m
Standard Entosis Link II:
- Requires Infomorph Psychology 4
- +900,000 mass when online
- 2 Minute Cycle Time, 250km range
- 120 PWG, 10 CPU
- 450 Capacitor per cycle
- Consumes 3 Stront per cycle
- Cost ~120m
I like this. Wouldn't mind 3 sizes small mid large maybe even xl for caps. What would be interesting too is if a capture event caused small medium large and xl sized targets that can only be hacked by tge corresponding elink size. So only A small link can capture a small capture tower and so on... maybe it could be linear so first ypu have to capture small tgen mid tgen large and the 10th capture can only be done with an xl link from a capital ship.
There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people...
CCP Goliath wrote:
Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.
|
SilentAsTheGrave
Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective
173
|
Posted - 2015.04.02 17:00:19 -
[127] - Quote
MeBiatch wrote:xttz wrote:What about size and tech differences? There's enough new stats to add some extra trade-offs. Small Entosis Link I:
- Requires Infomorph Psychology 1
- +250,000 mass when online
- 5 Minute Cycle Time, 25km range
- 10 PWG, 1 CPU
- 50 Capacitor per cycle
- Consumes 10 Stront per cycle
- Cost ~20m
Small Entosis Link II:
- Requires Infomorph Psychology 4
- +225,000 mass when online
- 5 Minute Cycle Time, 35km range
- 12 PWG, 1 CPU
- 45 Capacitor per cycle
- Consumes 8 Stront per cycle
- Cost ~50m
Standard Entosis Link I:
- Requires Infomorph Psychology 2
- +1,000,000 mass when online
- 2 Minute Cycle Time, 200km range
- 100 PWG, 10 CPU
- 500 Capacitor per cycle
- Consumes 4 Stront per cycle
- Cost ~80m
Standard Entosis Link II:
- Requires Infomorph Psychology 4
- +900,000 mass when online
- 2 Minute Cycle Time, 250km range
- 120 PWG, 10 CPU
- 450 Capacitor per cycle
- Consumes 3 Stront per cycle
- Cost ~120m
I like this. Wouldn't mind 3 sizes small mid large maybe even xl for caps. What would be interesting too is if a capture event caused small medium large and xl sized targets that can only be hacked by tge corresponding elink size. So only A small link can capture a small capture tower and so on... maybe it could be linear so first ypu have to capture small tgen mid tgen large and the 10th capture can only be done with an xl link from a capital ship. That goes against the idea of this new sov system not requiring specific ships or fits to work.
Buddy Program: If you sign up with my buddy invite link and subscribe with a valid payment method - I will give you 95% of the going rate for PLEX!
|
Arthur Aihaken
Narada
4282
|
Posted - 2015.04.02 17:03:29 -
[128] - Quote
I think the powergrid and CPU requirements for both Entosis links should be increased even further such that you can't run a T1 Entosis link on anything smaller than a destroyer and a T2 Entosis link on anything smaller than a cruiser.
I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
|
Wanda Fayne
Gurlz with Gunz
69
|
Posted - 2015.04.02 17:11:37 -
[129] - Quote
Arthur Aihaken wrote:I think the powergrid and CPU requirements for both Entosis links should be increased even further such that you can't run a T1 Entosis link on anything smaller than a destroyer and a T2 Entosis link on anything smaller than a cruiser.
That's against the stated design goals. |
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
5086
|
Posted - 2015.04.02 17:17:05 -
[130] - Quote
SilentAsTheGrave wrote: There have been some who have been saying this new Entosis Link will be a boost for bumping Machariels in high sec. The way I understand it, you need a valid target for the Entosis Link to activate to get the mass increase. There will not be any of these capture points in high sec so it is a moot point, correct?
Just online, not active.
Same way your Cap is gimped by a MWD, regardless of if you're using it or not.
Of course, for a Mach, it's a 1% bonus to mass. So that's not a huge deal
Woo! CSM X!
Fuzzwork Enterprises
Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter
|
|
GeeShizzle MacCloud
584
|
Posted - 2015.04.02 17:18:46 -
[131] - Quote
although its not within the realms of any kind of troll sov idea, i do still think that the t2 entosis link + mmjd can make for some confusing ninja situations where a bc or group of bc's will seemingly disappear mid entosis cycle after cycling their mmjds but still be on close range dscan. |
Andy Koraka
Blackwater USA Inc. Pandemic Legion
57
|
Posted - 2015.04.02 17:22:38 -
[132] - Quote
I would really prefer that the T2 Entosis link to have a 150km range on it. |
SilentAsTheGrave
Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective
174
|
Posted - 2015.04.02 17:32:08 -
[133] - Quote
Andy Koraka wrote:I would really prefer that the T2 Entosis link to have a 150km range on it. Why?
Buddy Program: If you sign up with my buddy invite link and subscribe with a valid payment method - I will give you 95% of the going rate for PLEX!
|
SFM Hobb3s
Wrecking Shots Black Legion.
280
|
Posted - 2015.04.02 17:49:38 -
[134] - Quote
I wouldn't really be too troubled with additional balancing beyond the original specs. I'm all for releasing as is/was, and letting the cards fall where they may. What's the worst that could happen? A handful of trollceptors take the sov away from a coalition that prefers to 'deny content'? Not a big loss if you ask me. Hell, if it causes all the coalitions and alliances to crumble that's fine. Balance it then. Then whatever comes out of the ashes of New Eden will be much better than what we have now (referring to donuts here) |
GeeShizzle MacCloud
584
|
Posted - 2015.04.02 18:43:19 -
[135] - Quote
cause of course being in black legion a sovless entity that has always been thwarted by powerful sov owning entities, your view isnt coloured at all.
You have no interests in sov or the mechanics of sov being balanced. and of course would like to see sov entities burn because of what you fail to do as an organisation; why the hell not push on the forums to achieve the objective through game mechanics right? |
Jenshae Chiroptera
1202
|
Posted - 2015.04.02 18:52:42 -
[136] - Quote
I have been wondering why they don't just make disposable "Hacking Structures" that you repair and shoot?
That effectively draws the battle lines.
CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids.
.
High Sec needs a stepping stone to other areas of space, where they can grow.
Fozzie is treating a symptom.
|
Daide Vondrichnov
SnaiLs aNd FroGs
33
|
Posted - 2015.04.02 18:54:29 -
[137] - Quote
GeeShizzle MacCloud wrote:cause of course being in black legion a sovless entity that has always been thwarted by powerful sov owning entities, your view isnt coloured at all.
You have no interests in sov or the mechanics of sov being balanced. and of course would like to see sov entities burn because of what you fail to do as an organisation; why the hell not push on the forums to achieve the objective through game mechanics right?
No mad pls. |
Lena Lazair
Khanid Irregulars Khanid's Legion
445
|
Posted - 2015.04.02 19:45:08 -
[138] - Quote
I assume this means the idea of a deployable e-link instead of a high-slot module is right out. Are there specific reasons why deployables aren't being considered for this? |
Anhenka
Infinite Point Nulli Secunda
1344
|
Posted - 2015.04.02 19:48:32 -
[139] - Quote
Lena Lazair wrote:I assume this means the idea of a deployable e-link instead of a high-slot module is right out. Are there specific reasons why deployables aren't being considered for this?
Because "Effective control of the grid" and "Not even on the grid" are two entirely contradictory ideas. |
Alexandros T'dra
Easy Co. Fatal Ascension
7
|
Posted - 2015.04.02 19:50:14 -
[140] - Quote
"Consumes 1 Stront per cycle"
Seems a rather low amount at just a mere 3 cubic meters. To prevent trolllogoffs behind the lines, increase this amount 10 fold. 30 cubic meters would give a frigate at least 8 to 10 cycles. |
|
Talvorian Dex
Repercussus Goonswarm Federation
61
|
Posted - 2015.04.02 19:51:32 -
[141] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote:Some quick questions for clarification: 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 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 Does this mean that if multiple ships are trading Entosis Links on a structure that each ship needs to run its own warm-up cycle? Like, if the structure is capturing right now, and I activate my module 10 seconds before my allies de-activates, do I need to go through a full cycle before I start progressing the capture timer or do I start capturing right away because my side already had an active capture going on when I activated my module? Quote:
- +250,000 mass when online
- 10 PWG, 1 CPU
...
- +1,000,000 mass when online
- 100 PWG, 10 CPU
Can you share the process behind picking these numbers? They seem to roughly match up to Meta 4 400mm and 800mm plates respectively but that still seems like a significant amount of weight in any sort of speed reliant fit. Also the power-grid requirements are pretty high for anything not at least the size of a Cruiser (ignoring T3 Destroyers for the moment) so does this mean you guys feel that's about the minimum bar that's likely to be relevant in Sov as a fleet composition?
That's kind of the point... the big complaint was in having a speed-reliant fit using it. CCP clearly wants us to focus on grid control, not running faster than the enemy can catch you, while entosising. I'd rather prefer the same rules as a cyno... it brings you to a stop. But this is better, and overcomes the objections about a "flee-fit" ship using it.
Writer of Target Caller, an Eve Online PvP blog, at http://targetcaller.blogspot.com
|
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
2065
|
Posted - 2015.04.02 20:26:18 -
[142] - Quote
SilentAsTheGrave wrote:MeBiatch wrote:xttz wrote:What about size and tech differences? There's enough new stats to add some extra trade-offs. Small Entosis Link I:
- Requires Infomorph Psychology 1
- +250,000 mass when online
- 5 Minute Cycle Time, 25km range
- 10 PWG, 1 CPU
- 50 Capacitor per cycle
- Consumes 10 Stront per cycle
- Cost ~20m
Small Entosis Link II:
- Requires Infomorph Psychology 4
- +225,000 mass when online
- 5 Minute Cycle Time, 35km range
- 12 PWG, 1 CPU
- 45 Capacitor per cycle
- Consumes 8 Stront per cycle
- Cost ~50m
Standard Entosis Link I:
- Requires Infomorph Psychology 2
- +1,000,000 mass when online
- 2 Minute Cycle Time, 200km range
- 100 PWG, 10 CPU
- 500 Capacitor per cycle
- Consumes 4 Stront per cycle
- Cost ~80m
Standard Entosis Link II:
- Requires Infomorph Psychology 4
- +900,000 mass when online
- 2 Minute Cycle Time, 250km range
- 120 PWG, 10 CPU
- 450 Capacitor per cycle
- Consumes 3 Stront per cycle
- Cost ~120m
I like this. Wouldn't mind 3 sizes small mid large maybe even xl for caps. What would be interesting too is if a capture event caused small medium large and xl sized targets that can only be hacked by tge corresponding elink size. So only A small link can capture a small capture tower and so on... maybe it could be linear so first ypu have to capture small tgen mid tgen large and the 10th capture can only be done with an xl link from a capital ship. That goes against the idea of this new sov system not requiring specific ships or fits to work.
Perhaps... i just like the idea of 1. Making capitals integration into the new system and requirements of all ship classes to do a full capture. That way to conquer something it needs more than just one ship type. I am thinking something similar to fw plexes but with elinks instead and since no jump gates need different ship sizes... i am good either way i think though my idea would provide more diversity
There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people...
CCP Goliath wrote:
Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.
|
Jenshae Chiroptera
1202
|
Posted - 2015.04.02 20:45:42 -
[143] - Quote
MeBiatch wrote:. I am thinking something similar to fw plexes You and Fozzie both.
CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids.
.
High Sec needs a stepping stone to other areas of space, where they can grow.
Fozzie is treating a symptom.
|
Iroquoiss Pliskin
Hedion University Amarr Empire
116
|
Posted - 2015.04.02 20:53:40 -
[144] - Quote
MeBiatch wrote:SilentAsTheGrave wrote:MeBiatch wrote:xttz wrote:What about size and tech differences? There's enough new stats to add some extra trade-offs. Small Entosis Link I:
- Requires Infomorph Psychology 1
- +250,000 mass when online
- 5 Minute Cycle Time, 25km range
- 10 PWG, 1 CPU
- 50 Capacitor per cycle
- Consumes 10 Stront per cycle
- Cost ~20m
Small Entosis Link II:
- Requires Infomorph Psychology 4
- +225,000 mass when online
- 5 Minute Cycle Time, 35km range
- 12 PWG, 1 CPU
- 45 Capacitor per cycle
- Consumes 8 Stront per cycle
- Cost ~50m
Standard Entosis Link I:
- Requires Infomorph Psychology 2
- +1,000,000 mass when online
- 2 Minute Cycle Time, 200km range
- 100 PWG, 10 CPU
- 500 Capacitor per cycle
- Consumes 4 Stront per cycle
- Cost ~80m
Standard Entosis Link II:
- Requires Infomorph Psychology 4
- +900,000 mass when online
- 2 Minute Cycle Time, 250km range
- 120 PWG, 10 CPU
- 450 Capacitor per cycle
- Consumes 3 Stront per cycle
- Cost ~120m
I like this. Wouldn't mind 3 sizes small mid large maybe even xl for caps. What would be interesting too is if a capture event caused small medium large and xl sized targets that can only be hacked by tge corresponding elink size. So only A small link can capture a small capture tower and so on... maybe it could be linear so first ypu have to capture small tgen mid tgen large and the 10th capture can only be done with an xl link from a capital ship. That goes against the idea of this new sov system not requiring specific ships or fits to work. Perhaps... i just like the idea of 1. Making capitals integration into the new system and requirements of all ship classes to do a full capture. That way to conquer something it needs more than just one ship type. I am thinking something similar to fw plexes but with elinks instead and since no jump gates need different ship sizes... i am good either way i think though my idea would provide more diversity
Hold on, so to capture some backwater, -0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 sec almost-abandoned system in the middle of nowhere, which has, lets say two belts, no good moons at all - An Official Ceremony must be Conducted, involving HIS MAJESTY the CAPITAL SHIP with a magic wand sitting at some structure for X minutes, with tumbleweed rolling around all the while.
People say, "Get rekt" in such cases, but that wouldn't be korrekt. vOv Yeah, that will bring out real dynamic content and more players into Niul, surely.
( -í° -£-û -í°)
|
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
2065
|
Posted - 2015.04.02 21:07:01 -
[145] - Quote
Iroquoiss Pliskin wrote:MeBiatch wrote:SilentAsTheGrave wrote:MeBiatch wrote:xttz wrote:What about size and tech differences? There's enough new stats to add some extra trade-offs. Small Entosis Link I:
- Requires Infomorph Psychology 1
- +250,000 mass when online
- 5 Minute Cycle Time, 25km range
- 10 PWG, 1 CPU
- 50 Capacitor per cycle
- Consumes 10 Stront per cycle
- Cost ~20m
Small Entosis Link II:
- Requires Infomorph Psychology 4
- +225,000 mass when online
- 5 Minute Cycle Time, 35km range
- 12 PWG, 1 CPU
- 45 Capacitor per cycle
- Consumes 8 Stront per cycle
- Cost ~50m
Standard Entosis Link I:
- Requires Infomorph Psychology 2
- +1,000,000 mass when online
- 2 Minute Cycle Time, 200km range
- 100 PWG, 10 CPU
- 500 Capacitor per cycle
- Consumes 4 Stront per cycle
- Cost ~80m
Standard Entosis Link II:
- Requires Infomorph Psychology 4
- +900,000 mass when online
- 2 Minute Cycle Time, 250km range
- 120 PWG, 10 CPU
- 450 Capacitor per cycle
- Consumes 3 Stront per cycle
- Cost ~120m
I like this. Wouldn't mind 3 sizes small mid large maybe even xl for caps. What would be interesting too is if a capture event caused small medium large and xl sized targets that can only be hacked by tge corresponding elink size. So only A small link can capture a small capture tower and so on... maybe it could be linear so first ypu have to capture small tgen mid tgen large and the 10th capture can only be done with an xl link from a capital ship. That goes against the idea of this new sov system not requiring specific ships or fits to work. Perhaps... i just like the idea of 1. Making capitals integration into the new system and requirements of all ship classes to do a full capture. That way to conquer something it needs more than just one ship type. I am thinking something similar to fw plexes but with elinks instead and since no jump gates need different ship sizes... i am good either way i think though my idea would provide more diversity Hold on, so to capture some backwater, -0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 sec almost-abandoned system in the middle of nowhere, which has, lets say two belts, no good moons at all - An Official Ceremony must be Conducted, involving HIS MAJESTY the CAPITAL SHIP with a magic wand sitting at some structure for X minutes, with tumbleweed rolling around all the while. People say, "Get rekt" in such cases, but that wouldn't be korrekt. vOv Yeah, that will bring out real dynamic content and more players into Niul and throughout the game, surely.
Hmm well caprure annoms size couod be based on tge occupancy index. So a system like you suggested might only end up needing medium sized e link to capture. But a systemthat has full occupancy index would go all tge way to capital elinks.
There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people...
CCP Goliath wrote:
Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.
|
Iroquoiss Pliskin
Hedion University Amarr Empire
119
|
Posted - 2015.04.02 21:14:39 -
[146] - Quote
MeBiatch wrote: Hmm well caprure annoms size couod be based on tge occupancy index. So a system like you suggested might only end up needing medium sized e link to capture. But a systemthat has full occupancy index would go all tge way to capital elinks.
Now, it does make sense. Let the people who want those V V V core system entertain their Capital Phantasies, allowing the majority of Eve engage in competitive, ruthless and UNPREDICTABLE* PvP in the mid-tier developed... Shall we say - lucrative pieces of pie? Yes.
*As opposed to, "Will they escalate with 1 mouse click?" FLOWCHART GOES -> Yes/No -> No -> Team 1 Wins. \o/
P.S. When do we deploy to NOL-? Ohhhhh... is it the wrong timeline? Anyway, actors change, but the concept of a full circle stays the same. You know who you are.
( -í° -£-û -í°)
|
Xe'Cara'eos
A Big Enough Lever
235
|
Posted - 2015.04.02 21:19:11 -
[147] - Quote
I have a question, on behalf of the smaller WH corps - what is there to stop a large nullsec alliance, coming in through some opportunistic door, kerb-stomping all over the locals (who CAN'T face down a 250-man fleet of harpies, sorry), then capturing the local tower for lols and loot, then leaving the system
previously WH occupation (for the smaller corps) was a matter of who could out-guerrilla the other, the side that lasted the longest in the face of constant enemy harassment, won
previously, the 24 hr window of WHs stopped nullsec stomping small WH alliances for lolz, as they would merely reinforce a tower at best/worst, as they would (almost) certainly be unable to reach the same system the following day. (urgh that's unclear, basically - reinforcement timers, combined with shifting WH's, stopped nullsec alliances destroying a tower without serious reason to commit x people to a WH)
or are you hoping to drastically reduce the number of small corps living out of WH's?
if you could find some way to ensure that someone needs to commit to the takeover for longer than most WH's will be open, that'd be muchly appreciated, otherwise it's far to easy to blob in W-space
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.
|
Garnoo
Eternity INC. Goonswarm Federation
160
|
Posted - 2015.04.02 21:26:53 -
[148] - Quote
iam probably missing something, but whats the point of having 1stront activation cost? smalles ships will be able to run it 30-50 or more times, so its as goot as no cost at all...
People are going to try to ruin your day. Get together with others, ruin their day back --á EvE
|
Wanda Fayne
Gurlz with Gunz
72
|
Posted - 2015.04.02 22:11:01 -
[149] - Quote
Garnoo wrote:iam probably missing something, but whats the point of having 1stront activation cost? smalles ships will be able to run it 30-50 or more times, so its as goot as no cost at all...
It means you have to refuel every 150-250 minutes for T1 link use, 60-100 minutes for T2 link use (based on your numbers).
Reasons should be obvious. |
SFM Hobb3s
Wrecking Shots Black Legion.
281
|
Posted - 2015.04.02 22:29:29 -
[150] - Quote
GeeShizzle MacCloud wrote:cause of course being in black legion a sovless entity that has always been thwarted by powerful sov owning entities, your view isnt coloured at all.
You have no interests in sov or the mechanics of sov being balanced. and of course would like to see sov entities burn because of what you fail to do as an organisation; why the hell not push on the forums to achieve the objective through game mechanics right?
You missed the part where I lived for years in Eve's shittiest corner of Sov space (Cobalt Edge) as part of IRC. But don't let your failure to check character history stop you from making baseless accusations. |
|
Manfred Sideous
North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion
1144
|
Posted - 2015.04.02 23:08:10 -
[151] - Quote
The Banking Clan will sign your treaty.
@EveManny
https://twitter.com/EveManny
|
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
2065
|
Posted - 2015.04.02 23:27:14 -
[152] - Quote
SFM Hobb3s wrote:GeeShizzle MacCloud wrote:cause of course being in black legion a sovless entity that has always been thwarted by powerful sov owning entities, your view isnt coloured at all.
You have no interests in sov or the mechanics of sov being balanced. and of course would like to see sov entities burn because of what you fail to do as an organisation; why the hell not push on the forums to achieve the objective through game mechanics right? You missed the part where I lived for years in Eve's shittiest corner of Sov space (Cobalt Edge) as part of IRC. But don't let your failure to check character history stop you from making baseless accusations.
Only thing better than old sckool irc was classic frege. Man do i miss those days
There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people...
CCP Goliath wrote:
Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.
|
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
2065
|
Posted - 2015.04.02 23:36:55 -
[153] - Quote
Iroquoiss Pliskin wrote:MeBiatch wrote: Hmm well caprure annoms size couod be based on tge occupancy index. So a system like you suggested might only end up needing medium sized e link to capture. But a systemthat has full occupancy index would go all tge way to capital elinks.
Now, it does make sense. Let the people who want those V V V core system entertain their Capital Phantasies, allowing the majority of Eve engage in competitive, ruthless and unpredictable* PvP in the mid-tier developed... Shall we say - lucrative pieces of pie? Yes. *As opposed to, "Will they escalate with 1 mouse click?" FLOWCHART GOES -> Yes/No -> No -> Team 1 Wins. \o/P.S. When do we deploy to NOL-? Ohhhhh... is it the wrong timeline? Actors may change, but the concept of a full circle stays the same. You know who you are.
So does this mean you support mu concept?
There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people...
CCP Goliath wrote:
Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.
|
GeeShizzle MacCloud
584
|
Posted - 2015.04.03 00:04:14 -
[154] - Quote
SFM Hobb3s wrote:GeeShizzle MacCloud wrote:cause of course being in black legion a sovless entity that has always been thwarted by powerful sov owning entities, your view isnt coloured at all.
You have no interests in sov or the mechanics of sov being balanced. and of course would like to see sov entities burn because of what you fail to do as an organisation; why the hell not push on the forums to achieve the objective through game mechanics right? You missed the part where I lived for years in Eve's shittiest corner of Sov space (Cobalt Edge) as part of IRC. But don't let your failure to check character history stop you from making baseless accusations.
well i apologise that i didnt recognise that you spent from the 19th of feb 2011 to the 10th of september 2012 in sov nullsec space. if you consider that time period to be years (plural) then i guess you can when rounding the time up to 1 significant figure. but from my understanding you've spent far more time out of sov nullsec then inside it, especially in terms of your most recent time in the game.
if you feel your views are more applicable because you view your time in IRC was akin to being enslaved in the worst part of nullsec and doing such penance means you feel entitled that your view is worth more than others dealing with sov nullsec currently then theres nothing much i can say to change how you feel, but i hope some objectivity might give you perspective.
Consider that although dominion sov hasn't changed much at all in the years it had been introduced, the strategic game and the tools and techniques both mechanically in game and psychologically outside and running parallel to the game have advanced tenfold, it is essential to consider all aspects of these when thinking critically about the mechanics of the entosis links. Striking a balance so that it is challenging for both sides of equal mass skill and resources is i believe where ccp wants it to be.
basically please try to be objective if you want to add to the debate, cause saying things like "i dont care, let all sov nullsec burn" is not helpful in trying to shape a good balanced system, and people like myself will retort in kind. |
Petrified
Old and Petrified Syndication TOG - The Older Gamers Alliance
239
|
Posted - 2015.04.03 00:43:43 -
[155] - Quote
I assume a ship using an entosis link can activate a cyno and, if capable, covert cyno? |
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans
2206
|
Posted - 2015.04.03 00:45:28 -
[156] - Quote
Petrified wrote:I assume a ship using an entosis link can activate a cyno and, if capable, covert cyno? Best bait ever, the kind you can't ignore. |
Cade Windstalker
Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra
330
|
Posted - 2015.04.03 03:37:28 -
[157] - Quote
Rowells wrote:Petrified wrote:I assume a ship using an entosis link can activate a cyno and, if capable, covert cyno? Best bait ever, the kind you can't ignore.
Okay, that's the best troll ever. Start using the Link on someone's stuff and then light a Cyno as soon as the warm-up cycle is over. Locals are left wondering if they should warp in or not because there's an open cyno but no local spike yet. |
Cade Windstalker
Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra
330
|
Posted - 2015.04.03 03:41:07 -
[158] - Quote
Alexandros T'dra wrote:"Consumes 1 Stront per cycle"
Seems a rather low amount at just a mere 3 cubic meters. To prevent trolllogoffs behind the lines, increase this amount 10 fold. 30 cubic meters would give a frigate at least 8 to 10 cycles.
Except the same applies to any BS with a decent ammo loadout and 10 cycles is, with a T2 link, 8 minutes of capture assuming you aren't interrupted in any way, and for the actual contest over the structure (as opposed to the initial reinforcement) you're looking at *at least* 10 of these timers to burn down.
The fuel shouldn't be a significant impediment to capturing a system, but it should be there and be something you have to deal with because it mitigates some potentially problematic tactics, and if a fight goes on long enough then supply chains and other factors come into play in a big way. |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
6679
|
Posted - 2015.04.03 04:35:07 -
[159] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote:Rowells wrote:Petrified wrote:I assume a ship using an entosis link can activate a cyno and, if capable, covert cyno? Best bait ever, the kind you can't ignore. Okay, that's the best troll ever. Start using the Link on someone's stuff and then light a Cyno as soon as the warm-up cycle is over. Locals are left wondering if they should warp in or not because there's an open cyno but no local spike yet. So you're consuming stront for the link and LO for the cyno, sounds balanced
^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears.
Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
|
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans
2210
|
Posted - 2015.04.03 04:45:58 -
[160] - Quote
Alavaria Fera wrote:Cade Windstalker wrote:Rowells wrote:Petrified wrote:I assume a ship using an entosis link can activate a cyno and, if capable, covert cyno? Best bait ever, the kind you can't ignore. Okay, that's the best troll ever. Start using the Link on someone's stuff and then light a Cyno as soon as the warm-up cycle is over. Locals are left wondering if they should warp in or not because there's an open cyno but no local spike yet. So you're consuming stront for the link and LO for the cyno, sounds balanced Hope the cargo crew is up to game.
"which container has the Strontium, we need it ASAP!" "Uhhhh, I think this one. Here, take it quick." *empties container into module fuel port* "Wait does that say 'Exotic Dancers' on the side?" |
|
Cade Windstalker
Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra
330
|
Posted - 2015.04.03 04:54:36 -
[161] - Quote
Rowells wrote:Alavaria Fera wrote: So you're consuming stront for the link and LO for the cyno, sounds balanced
Hope the cargo crew is up to game. "which container has the Strontium, we need it ASAP!" "Uhhhh, I think this one. Here, take it quick." *empties container into module fuel port* "Wait does that say 'Exotic Dancers' on the side?"
CCP should do this for April Fools next year. Change the item portrait for all charges and fuel to Exotic Dancers.
But I digress, I think the fuel requirement is fine so far, but we won't know for sure until we get a chance to test this in practical terms. It's possible the fuel requirements may need a small bump, but even doubling them to 2 could have a significant impact on the progress of a long fight.
IMO better for them to low-ball it and have the fuel not matter too much, since it's not hard-stopping any obvious problems that I can see, rather than have the fuel completely grind Sov Warfare to a halt until CCP can patch in a fix. |
Lugh Crow-Slave
1023
|
Posted - 2015.04.03 05:21:35 -
[162] - Quote
Quote: High Slot module, limit of one per ship
would it break anything to change this to
only one can be active
letting pilots chose to fit two but only use one at a time similar to ecm bursts?
EDIT:
to be honest im not sure who would use this but it would give more options and accomplish the same goal as only one per ship
Fuel block colors? Missiles for Caldari T3? Corp Stasis
|
Cade Windstalker
Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra
331
|
Posted - 2015.04.03 08:12:28 -
[163] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:Quote: High Slot module, limit of one per ship would it break anything to change this to only one can be active letting pilots chose to fit two but only use one at a time similar to ecm bursts? EDIT: to be honest im not sure who would use this but it would give more options and accomplish the same goal as only one per ship
There's no point to this except to abuse the weight increase for bumping or something of the sort. |
yogizh
Northstar Cabal Tactical Narcotics Team
23
|
Posted - 2015.04.03 11:02:23 -
[164] - Quote
Same as with Phoebe, masses of ceptor cowards stopped cheering cause they found out that the point of these changes is not making the life of the most competent organizations in game into living hell.
Entosis link makes sence now and will bring actual pvp into sov warfare. If you can't form at least a small fleet to take one system, you should consider a different EVE career than null sov. Frigates should be kept as support ships, not a tool for trolls that have no interest in fighting for sov space. It should require dedication and effort to have shiny things in a game. I believe that sov change at this point is on a good path to this. |
Reaver Glitterstim
Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore
2406
|
Posted - 2015.04.03 11:25:10 -
[165] - Quote
I don't see any reason to make capital ships have a longer duration. Sure, they're more difficult to shoot down, but they're also more difficult to get into position and a lot more valuable of a target. It's not like shooting a linking subcap is going to reset the timer for that side, in fact it likely won't even stop their timer since many forces will use multiple entosis links on a single structure.
Yes, an entire fleet of dreadnoughts and carriers will easily win a link. Is that a bad thing? I say we should have more reasons to put capital ships in the line of fire, not less.
A Caldari is just a Gallente who begged to have their civil liberties taken away.
|
Iroquoiss Pliskin
Hedion University Amarr Empire
124
|
Posted - 2015.04.03 12:58:26 -
[166] - Quote
MeBiatch wrote: So does this mean you support mu concept?
Is gud.
( -í° -£-û -í°)
|
Emmy Mnemonic
Svea Rike Fatal Ascension
45
|
Posted - 2015.04.03 13:43:46 -
[167] - Quote
rsantos wrote:The dirty bloblers have won! Hope you all have fun with the new sov laser cyno fitted to your carriers in 10% TiDi!
Well, I agree with you! Entosis-mechanisms gets rid of blobbing to do hit-point damage, but introduces blobbing to control the battlefield when entosising sov-structures. Status quo. And carriers? I can easily see Supers do this - can't be jammed, difficult for smaller groups like yours to kill them, they can ECM-burst both your DPS and logis. And the defenders have all the time in the world, they're not in a hurry.
So, yes, there will be blobbing again. Sadly.
But then blobbing has been the case all the time, entosis or no entosis - to gain control over the battlefield, you will need to blob in one way or another. Killing a ratter - conrol the battlefield by dropping and blob him with SBs, Recons and Black Ops. Small annoying 10-man Swedish pvp-gang in cruisers in Fountain - run away or blob them with Battleships. Usually run away though :-)
CEO Svea Rike
|
1Robert McNamara1
The Graduates Forged of Fire
81
|
Posted - 2015.04.03 15:07:34 -
[168] - Quote
Oh man, cruiser sized AND fuel required? Awesome.
The mass penalties are a nice touch. It means Amarr gain a slight boost due to how you guys manipulated their power to weight ratios to make plates feel better. I'm a fan of that too.
I feel this means people looking to entosis things will have to bring more than their whimsy, thank you. |
Ncc 1709
Fusion Enterprises Ltd Shadow of xXDEATHXx
163
|
Posted - 2015.04.03 15:17:41 -
[169] - Quote
I think the 1 stront per cycle is too low it should be 10, meaning if you intend on taking multiple systems you need stront haulers with you. |
Agent Unknown
Night Theifs
40
|
Posted - 2015.04.03 15:25:47 -
[170] - Quote
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:I don't see any reason to make capital ships have a longer duration. Sure, they're more difficult to shoot down, but they're also more difficult to get into position and a lot more valuable of a target. It's not like shooting a linking subcap is going to reset the timer for that side, in fact it likely won't even stop their timer since many forces will use multiple entosis links on a single structure.
Yes, an entire fleet of dreadnoughts and carriers will easily win a link. Is that a bad thing? I say we should have more reasons to put capital ships in the line of fire, not less.
Something something :suddenly supers: |
|
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
2065
|
Posted - 2015.04.03 16:45:00 -
[171] - Quote
Agent Unknown wrote:Reaver Glitterstim wrote:I don't see any reason to make capital ships have a longer duration. Sure, they're more difficult to shoot down, but they're also more difficult to get into position and a lot more valuable of a target. It's not like shooting a linking subcap is going to reset the timer for that side, in fact it likely won't even stop their timer since many forces will use multiple entosis links on a single structure.
Yes, an entire fleet of dreadnoughts and carriers will easily win a link. Is that a bad thing? I say we should have more reasons to put capital ships in the line of fire, not less. Something something :suddenly supers:
How about the e link will make ewar immune ships vulnerable to ewar while to module is active. You really going to use your super with an elink if you csnt br rr and you can be jammed?
There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people...
CCP Goliath wrote:
Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.
|
Iroquoiss Pliskin
Hedion University Amarr Empire
125
|
Posted - 2015.04.03 16:45:05 -
[172] - Quote
Agent Unknown wrote:Reaver Glitterstim wrote:I don't see any reason to make capital ships have a longer duration. Sure, they're more difficult to shoot down, but they're also more difficult to get into position and a lot more valuable of a target. It's not like shooting a linking subcap is going to reset the timer for that side, in fact it likely won't even stop their timer since many forces will use multiple entosis links on a single structure.
Yes, an entire fleet of dreadnoughts and carriers will easily win a link. Is that a bad thing? I say we should have more reasons to put capital ships in the line of fire, not less. Something something :suddenly supers:
Always and forever to the grave. GÖÑ Bigger Better GÖÑ Sub-caps will be sub-caps GÖÑ Peasants will be peasants GÖÑ
Don't ye raise ye voice against the LORD, lest you want to suffer CAPITAL punishment.
MeBiatch wrote: How about the e link will make ewar immune ships vulnerable to ewar while to module is active. You really going to use your super with an elink if you csnt br rr and you can be jammed?
How about no? Redundant levels of complexity are not a way to go.
Eve will sort out which ships are best for FozzieSov capture mechanics.
Even CCP don't know which shiptype/class that is going to be.
( -í° -£-û -í°)
|
Agent Unknown
Night Theifs
40
|
Posted - 2015.04.03 16:51:33 -
[173] - Quote
MeBiatch wrote:Agent Unknown wrote:Reaver Glitterstim wrote:I don't see any reason to make capital ships have a longer duration. Sure, they're more difficult to shoot down, but they're also more difficult to get into position and a lot more valuable of a target. It's not like shooting a linking subcap is going to reset the timer for that side, in fact it likely won't even stop their timer since many forces will use multiple entosis links on a single structure.
Yes, an entire fleet of dreadnoughts and carriers will easily win a link. Is that a bad thing? I say we should have more reasons to put capital ships in the line of fire, not less. Something something :suddenly supers: How about the e link will make ewar immune ships vulnerable to ewar while to module is active. You really going to use your super with an elink if you csnt br rr and you can be jammed?
Well, there's also controlling the grid and alphaing anything off the field with a deployed slowcat fleet to support said super that's using the e-link.
Encouraging the use of capitals to gain an advantage only contributes to the n+1 problem. If supers can be used, then alliances that can field enough supers/capital support to contest all the beacons will be at a great advantage. Granted, even with the penalty you can still do this, but at least it's discouraged. |
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
2065
|
Posted - 2015.04.03 16:57:49 -
[174] - Quote
Emmy Mnemonic wrote:rsantos wrote:The dirty bloblers have won! Hope you all have fun with the new sov laser cyno fitted to your carriers in 10% TiDi!
Well, I agree with you! Entosis-mechanisms gets rid of blobbing to do hit-point damage, but introduces blobbing to control the battlefield when entosising sov-structures. Status quo. And carriers? I can easily see Supers do this - can't be jammed, difficult for smaller groups like yours to kill them, they can ECM-burst both your DPS and logis. And the defenders have all the time in the world, they're not in a hurry. So, yes, there will be blobbing again. Sadly. But then blobbing has been the case all the time, entosis or no entosis - to gain control over the battlefield, you will need to blob in one way or another. Killing a ratter - conrol the battlefield by dropping and blob him with SBs, Recons and Black Ops. Small annoying 10-man Swedish pvp-gang in cruisers in Fountain - run away or blob them with Battleships. Usually run away though :-)
I think ccp understand that there will always be blobing its human nature. What they are attempting to do is make the blob go from one grid in one system to multiple grids over a constellation. This should help server load but i fear will end up with multiple 30 min black loading screens which will just **** people off.
There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people...
CCP Goliath wrote:
Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.
|
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
2065
|
Posted - 2015.04.03 17:03:45 -
[175] - Quote
Agent Unknown wrote:MeBiatch wrote:Agent Unknown wrote:Reaver Glitterstim wrote:I don't see any reason to make capital ships have a longer duration. Sure, they're more difficult to shoot down, but they're also more difficult to get into position and a lot more valuable of a target. It's not like shooting a linking subcap is going to reset the timer for that side, in fact it likely won't even stop their timer since many forces will use multiple entosis links on a single structure.
Yes, an entire fleet of dreadnoughts and carriers will easily win a link. Is that a bad thing? I say we should have more reasons to put capital ships in the line of fire, not less. Something something :suddenly supers: How about the e link will make ewar immune ships vulnerable to ewar while to module is active. You really going to use your super with an elink if you csnt br rr and you can be jammed? Well, there's also controlling the grid and alphaing anything off the field with a deployed slowcat fleet to support said super that's using the e-link. Encouraging the use of capitals to gain an advantage only contributes to the n+1 problem. If supers can be used, then alliances that can field enough supers/capital support to contest all the beacons will be at a great advantage. Granted, even with the penalty you can still do this, but at least it's discouraged.
all true but now remember there are 10 capture annoms in tge constellation you have to capture. Lets say cfc has taken 9 tgat means they only need one more to take the system. So now 5 new capture annoms have appeared. As n3 which one will you defend with carriers and supers? If you start jumping around willy nilly your jump fatigue willbgo threw the roof and if you split your firces equal tgen pl will jump in on a small group of supers and dd them to death.
There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people...
CCP Goliath wrote:
Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.
|
Iroquoiss Pliskin
Hedion University Amarr Empire
126
|
Posted - 2015.04.03 17:10:08 -
[176] - Quote
MeBiatch wrote:...which one will you defend with carriers and supers? If you start jumping around willy nilly your jump fatigue willbgo threw the roof and if you split your firces equal tgen pl will jump in on a small group of supers and dd them to death.
Yespls.
Dear Lord Almighty, Make It Happen So!
Split them up, carve them up, demoralise with COAD... Terrorise the renters one system at a time... Plant the seeds of rebellion, awox and insurrection... Eat... Eat into the Heart of Deklein, Delve, Catch and every other region.
New Eden will bathe in Blood and righteous Fire, as Coalitions and Alliances begin to implode, vultures and hyenas will take what lies within reach.
( -í° -£-û -í°)
|
Shodan Of Citadel
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
14
|
Posted - 2015.04.03 18:34:32 -
[177] - Quote
250km range on T2 Link, but what if you damp the ship or it moves off grid? Please set to 150km range -where most combat is.
Penalty -counteracts bubble immunity when fit. |
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans
2214
|
Posted - 2015.04.03 18:36:17 -
[178] - Quote
Shodan Of Citadel wrote:250km range on T2 Link, but what if you damp the ship or it moves off grid? Please set to 150km range -where most combat is.
Penalty -counteracts bubble immunity when fit. if they break lock or go offgrid then they out of luck. 250km allows for all possible iterations of range available to larger ships. |
Mario Putzo
Iron Dog Industries
1140
|
Posted - 2015.04.03 18:37:39 -
[179] - Quote
WOOO Go go Golems and Ravens! |
Shodan Of Citadel
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
14
|
Posted - 2015.04.03 18:37:39 -
[180] - Quote
Rowells wrote:Shodan Of Citadel wrote:250km range on T2 Link, but what if you damp the ship or it moves off grid? Please set to 150km range -where most combat is.
Penalty -counteracts bubble immunity when fit. if they break lock or go offgrid then they out of luck. 250km allows for all possible iterations of range available to larger ships.
sorry, damn quickpost didn't post and I had to add something you could have potentially flamed...
"Make mobile depots bigger so they can't fit in ceptors" |
|
Mario Putzo
Iron Dog Industries
1140
|
Posted - 2015.04.03 18:40:27 -
[181] - Quote
Shodan Of Citadel wrote:Rowells wrote:Shodan Of Citadel wrote:250km range on T2 Link, but what if you damp the ship or it moves off grid? Please set to 150km range -where most combat is.
Penalty -counteracts bubble immunity when fit. if they break lock or go offgrid then they out of luck. 250km allows for all possible iterations of range available to larger ships. sorry, damn quickpost didn't post and I had to add something you could have potentially flamed... "Make mobile depots bigger so they can't fit in ceptors"
Curious if a ceptor is carrying a mobile depot...how is it carrying stront to effectively terrorize sov? and w/e it is using the mobile depot yo refit with. |
Hairpins Blueprint
CBC Interstellar Fidelas Constans
168
|
Posted - 2015.04.03 19:48:51 -
[182] - Quote
All Hail Ethosis Rifter Bolb
I like the stats it makes me happy you can't fit T2 on frigs. |
Iroquoiss Pliskin
Hedion University Amarr Empire
128
|
Posted - 2015.04.03 19:53:31 -
[183] - Quote
Hairpins Blueprint wrote:All Hail Ethosis Rifter Bolb I like the stats it makes me happy you can't fit T2 on frigs.
That's pretty gud that even roaming Rifters can disrupt unprotected assets, buffer zones and/or space.
GòöGòÉGòÉGòÉGÿà.Black.Rebel.GÿàGòÉGòÉGòÉGòù GòæGûêGûÇGûêGûæGûêGûæGûêGûÇGûæGûÇGûêGûÇGûæGûäGûÇGûÇGûäGûæGòæ GòæGûêGûÇGûäGûæGûêGûæGûêGûÇGûæGûæGûêGûæGûæGûêGûäGûäGûêGûæGòæ GòæGûêGûæGûêGûæGûêGûæGûêGûæGûæGûæGûêGûæGûæGûêGûæGûæGûêGûæGòæ GòÜGòÉGòÉGòÉGÿà.R1FTA Club.GÿàGòÉGòÉGòÉGò¥
( -í° -£-û -í°)
|
Daide Vondrichnov
SnaiLs aNd FroGs
34
|
Posted - 2015.04.03 22:00:55 -
[184] - Quote
Wait and see your capital blob road for the 10 winning nodes, and watch their road bulled everywhere...
Then if they blob on a station timer, just go to another system and links it while they are bulled 5 jumps out, or put a inhibitor and watch them get bulled 250km from you, They can still target the station ? Np Damp them.
They have a subcap blob ? Deal with it, and keep harrassing them until they lose members and get them where they don't expect you to. |
Swiftstrike1
Swiftstrike Incorporated
878
|
Posted - 2015.04.04 01:54:39 -
[185] - Quote
I get that you want the emphasis to be on the fight, not on the capture mechanic itself... but using the Entosis module seems to make you so incredibly vulnerable that you can't realistically consider using it until the fight is over!
This reduces the entire Entosis Link mechanic to a mere formality that must be attended to after the fight.
Hardly sounds like exciting new gameplay to me... more like paperwork.
I do have an alternative mechanic in mind...
Alternative Mechanic wrote:
- All structures have their resistances increased to 99% and HP reduced appropriately
- Entosis Link modules reduce those resistances with each successful cycle instead of contributing to capture points
- Structures can still be reinforced/destroyed without Entosis Links, but it is highly impractical
- If attackers lose Entosis Link with target structure for even just 1 second... resistances instantly return to 99%
What's the primary benefit of this hybrid Entosis-Grind mechanic?
Trollceptors capturing stuff with Entosis Links is not just mitigated, it is annihilated because they simply lack the DPS Imagine a 50 million EHP structure that might ordinarily take an hour to grind and destroy... then imagine you reduce its resistances from 99% to 0% using an Entosis Link while you're busy shooting at it. Its EHP drops from 50 million to just 500k. Your Entosis Link just saved you a hell of a lot of time and made it damn hard for any defenders to rep the thing. That makes it an invaluable asset, but at the same time... you didn't really need it. It would have taken a lot longer and been a lot harder without it, but it still would have been possible.
Targeting, Sensors and ECM Overhaul
|
Cade Windstalker
Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra
332
|
Posted - 2015.04.04 02:21:21 -
[186] - Quote
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:I don't see any reason to make capital ships have a longer duration. Sure, they're more difficult to shoot down, but they're also more difficult to get into position and a lot more valuable of a target. It's not like shooting a linking subcap is going to reset the timer for that side, in fact it likely won't even stop their timer since many forces will use multiple entosis links on a single structure.
Yes, an entire fleet of dreadnoughts and carriers will easily win a link. Is that a bad thing? I say we should have more reasons to put capital ships in the line of fire, not less.
Because part of the point of these changes is to move sov away from "Capital and Super Capital blobs Online". If huge numbers of caps and super-caps are the only way to take Sov then it's very very difficult for a new group to take and hold Sov space without the help of (read, being carried by) one of the existing super-power blocs.
MeBiatch wrote:How about the e link will make ewar immune ships vulnerable to ewar while to module is active. You really going to use your super with an elink if you csnt br rr and you can be jammed?
Also not necessary, since you're looking at a continuous window of *twenty minutes* for a Capital or Super Capital to make any progress toward the timer, unless they blow up during that time (in which case their progress is time minus ten minutes, minimum zero). A prepared fleet of sub-caps can nuke a Carrier or Dreadnaught easily in that amount of time, and a capital fleet that doesn't suddenly have a 20 minute Triage/Siege timer will just laugh as they blap the enemy capitals off the field. Making them subject to E-War isn't really necessary given these factors, since compared to the profitability of even a single system in Null having a Dreadnaught or two isn't much of a cost. |
Cade Windstalker
Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra
332
|
Posted - 2015.04.04 02:37:07 -
[187] - Quote
Swiftstrike1 wrote:I get that you want the emphasis to be on the fight, not on the capture mechanic itself... but using the Entosis module seems to make you so incredibly vulnerable that you can't realistically consider using it until the fight is over! This reduces the entire Entosis Link mechanic to a mere formality that must be attended to after the fight. Hardly sounds like exciting new gameplay to me... more like paperwork. I do have an alternative mechanic in mind... Alternative Mechanic wrote:
- All structures have their resistances increased to 99% and HP reduced to maintain current EHP
- Entosis Link modules reduce those resistances with each successful cycle instead of capturing
- Structures can still be reinforced/destroyed without Entosis Links, but it is highly impractical
- If Entosis Link with target structure is lost for even just 1 second... resistances instantly return to 99%
What are the primary benefits of this hybrid Entosis-Grind mechanic? Trollceptors capturing stuff with Entosis Links is not just mitigated, it is annihilated because they simply lack the DPS Removes the whole "who are the attackers and who are the defenders" mess. Either there is an Entosis Link being used on the structure or there is not. It doesn't matter who is using it. Imagine a 50 million EHP structure that might ordinarily take an hour to grind and destroy... then imagine you reduce its resistances from 99% to 0% using an Entosis Link while you're busy shooting at it. Its EHP drops from 50 million to just 500k. Your Entosis Link just saved you a hell of a lot of time and made it damn hard for any defenders to rep the thing. That makes it an invaluable asset, but at the same time... you didn't really need it. It would have taken a lot longer and been a lot harder without it, but it still would have been possible.
We don't need structure grinding to make a comeback. Even if you bring Structures down to 0% resistances they still have a massive amount of EHP and it's impractical to kill them without either a massive sub-cap blob or a slightly less massive capital fleet. For reference an Infrastructure hub has 5 million structure, 75 million shields, and 112.5 million Armor. That's just shy of 200 million total EHP even at 0% resistances, and would take 21 Moros Dreadnaughts two full Siege timers to grind through. Over 213 total minutes of Siege Mode.
While a large Null fight will probably not have either side capturing the structure until they actively control the grid that is A. not necessarily a bad thing and B. not significantly different from how things go now. If there are enemy Caps on grid you shoot the caps first, you don't keep blapping away at the tower that's going to take several more rounds of Siege to die/hit the next timer threshold.
Now, in smaller fights, like in Low-Sec, Wormholes, or anywhere else where an Entosis Link might be used that isn't a large Null fight, as well as in a smaller-scale Null fight like you might see in some of the less desirable space (Providence anyone?) this doesn't hold up. In these smaller fights it's possible and practical for fleets to field ships that can survive for multiple cycles, like Dictors, Command Ships, T3 Cruisers, or Capitals.
In the larger fights it's likely that the time when people are ticking down the timer will not be time spent completely idle. The FC will have to check his intel, see if the enemy is abandoning the fight or regrouping, and then react to that info. With a 30-40 minute timer just to take a single Node then the enemy is going to have plenty of time to re-ship, move forces around between the various nodes, and keep fighting back. It's quite possible that in a close fight a single Node could change hands multiple times before finally being closed out by one side or the other. |
ISD Decoy
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
450
|
Posted - 2015.04.04 02:39:17 -
[188] - Quote
Quote:5. Trolling is prohibited.
Trolling is a defined as a post that is deliberately designed for the purpose of angering and insulting other players in an attempt to incite retaliation or an emotional response. Posts of this nature are disruptive, often abusive, and do not contribute to the sense of community that CCP promote. I have removed a trolling post and one quoting it.
ISD Decoy
Commander
Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)
Interstellar Services Department
|
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
6681
|
Posted - 2015.04.04 03:06:03 -
[189] - Quote
Swiftstrike1 wrote:I get that you want the emphasis to be on the fight, not on the capture mechanic itself... but using the Entosis module seems to make you so incredibly vulnerable that you can't realistically consider using it until the fight is over!
This reduces the entire Entosis Link mechanic to a mere formality that must be attended to after the fight. So, after someone has effective military control?
Oh snap, gotta rethink
^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears.
Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
|
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
1997
|
Posted - 2015.04.04 04:07:33 -
[190] - Quote
Damnit Goons! Making me like your post! :P Sounds like CCP have this one looking like a potential concept then, though we'll have to see how the Meta actually plays out and I still have huge concerns over the density issue that you simply can't have a substantial number of people living in the same system in Null (Unless you are miners). |
|
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
15561
|
Posted - 2015.04.04 08:12:46 -
[191] - Quote
Nevyn Auscent wrote:Damnit Goons! Making me like your post! :P Sounds like CCP have this one looking like a potential concept then, though we'll have to see how the Meta actually plays out and I still have huge concerns over the density issue that you simply can't have a substantial number of people living in the same system in Null (Unless you are miners).
See structures for a fix to this. (hint: mission agents in sov space)
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Cade Windstalker
Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra
332
|
Posted - 2015.04.04 08:25:39 -
[192] - Quote
Something just occurred to me that's rather concerning, and it deals with the constellation-wide Node spawning. In the middle of a major campaign it's not outside the realm of possibility that a Constellation could be contested with both sides owning part of the area. These new structures look to offer a small but still significant home-field advantage to the side that controls the system, so having all of the nodes spawn in one side's territory through RNG would not be desirable.
Would it be possible to, at least at the start of the contest, push the nodes toward an even distribution around the constellation so that a bad set of dice rolls don't massively bias the fight?
I doubt it will happen often but the one time it does during a major fight the forums will light on fire (again).
Not sure what a good distribution method would be, except that by system owner would invite potential abuse of mechanics. Maybe something that lowers the chance of successive spawns in the same system of the same node, or something of the sort. Maybe also bias it initially toward systems that don't have a system with a node adjacent either, so most configurations of constellation default to a nice even spread to start. |
Swiftstrike1
Swiftstrike Incorporated
878
|
Posted - 2015.04.04 13:44:53 -
[193] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote:We don't need structure grinding to make a comeback. Even if you bring Structures down to 0% resistances they still have a massive amount of EHP and it's impractical to kill them without either a massive sub-cap blob or a slightly less massive capital fleet. For reference an Infrastructure hub has 5 million structure, 75 million shields, and 112.5 million Armor. That's just shy of 200 million total EHP
Actually that link you posted is out of date. If you look at an Infrastructure Hub in-game you will find that it has less than half that many hit points (2.5 mil structure, 45 mil armour and 30 mil shield). Taking its resistance into account, it has 96.25 million EHP. If we were to adjust the structure stats so that all of that came from 99% resistances instead of raw HP, my proposed Entosis Link mechanics would reduce that EHP to less than 1 mil. In other words, down from approximately double a Titan's EHP to less than a Dreadnought's EHP.
That amount of EHP is nothing for a 0.0 blob, but still far too much for a trollceptor to handle. This is the sweet spot! This is what we should be aiming for!
Targeting, Sensors and ECM Overhaul
|
Caleb Seremshur
Gladiators of Rage RAZOR Alliance
526
|
Posted - 2015.04.04 15:01:19 -
[194] - Quote
Swiftstrike1 wrote:Cade Windstalker wrote:We don't need structure grinding to make a comeback. Even if you bring Structures down to 0% resistances they still have a massive amount of EHP and it's impractical to kill them without either a massive sub-cap blob or a slightly less massive capital fleet. For reference an Infrastructure hub has 5 million structure, 75 million shields, and 112.5 million Armor. That's just shy of 200 million total EHP Actually that link you posted is out of date. If you look at an Infrastructure Hub in-game you will find that it has less than half that many hit points (2.5 mil structure, 45 mil armour and 30 mil shield). Taking its resistance into account, it has 96.25 million EHP. If we were to adjust the structure stats so that all of that came from 99% resistances instead of raw HP, my proposed Entosis Link mechanics would reduce that EHP to less than 1 mil. In other words, down from approximately double a Titan's EHP to less than a Dreadnought's EHP. That amount of EHP is nothing for a 0.0 blob, but still far too much for a trollceptor to handle. This is the sweet spot! This is what we should be aiming for!
I don't see how any given arbitrary EHP number is a sweetspot.
A given group will always bring enough to handle the task.
That's the simplest breakdown of the equation. We are at a point where one coalition has 40,000+ members. Don't ever pretend for a second that it wouldn't be possible for any set number of ships to turn up unless that number was outright unrealistic (CCP twoK era balancing).
Veteran and solo/small gang PVP advocate.
|
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
6690
|
Posted - 2015.04.04 15:20:50 -
[195] - Quote
Oh my, we must stop a massive coalition
quick replace EHP with EntosisHitPoints
^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears.
Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
|
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
2065
|
Posted - 2015.04.04 16:05:38 -
[196] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Nevyn Auscent wrote:Damnit Goons! Making me like your post! :P Sounds like CCP have this one looking like a potential concept then, though we'll have to see how the Meta actually plays out and I still have huge concerns over the density issue that you simply can't have a substantial number of people living in the same system in Null (Unless you are miners). See structures for a fix to this. (hint: mission agents in sov space)
I agree mission agents in sov space would go along way to help density issues with 0.0
There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people...
CCP Goliath wrote:
Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.
|
Groperson
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
64
|
Posted - 2015.04.04 17:02:23 -
[197] - Quote
Excellent mechanics, completely addressing the concerns of a trollceptor meta.
Now the people who want to attack space must risk something on field which can be killed, providing content for all involved. Instead of the defenders being griefed into chasing interceptors around their own space..
|
HandelsPharmi
Pharmi on CharBazaar
1272
|
Posted - 2015.04.04 19:23:14 -
[198] - Quote
I would recommend Adv. infomorph Psychology level 5 for the T2 module. it should not be that easy to fit. or make a small and large version with T1 and T2 metas. I want to see some difficult requirements for the faster / more efficient module.
and limit the module to higher skill requirements. a full account is not a limit as long it does not cost really much time and isk... |
Cade Windstalker
Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra
334
|
Posted - 2015.04.04 20:09:06 -
[199] - Quote
HandelsPharmi wrote:I would recommend Adv. infomorph Psychology level 5 for the T2 module. it should not be that easy to fit. or make a small and large version with T1 and T2 metas. I want to see some difficult requirements for the faster / more efficient module.
and limit the module to higher skill requirements. a full account is not a limit as long it does not cost really much time and isk...
I think you're misunderstanding, the T2 module is actually less efficient. They both capture in the same amount of time the shorter cycle time just lets you potentially escape or switch off more easily.
Also part of the point of these changes is lowering the barrier to entry for Sov Warfare, which is currently measured on the scale "Your supercap fleet must be this tall to participate" |
HandelsPharmi
Pharmi on CharBazaar
1272
|
Posted - 2015.04.04 20:14:09 -
[200] - Quote
T2 makes me and my fleet more agile, thereforeit should have higher requirements. on the other side, it can be balanced later as well.
|
|
Cade Windstalker
Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra
334
|
Posted - 2015.04.04 20:28:58 -
[201] - Quote
HandelsPharmi wrote:T2 makes me and my fleet more agile, thereforeit should have higher requirements. on the other side, it can be balanced later as well.
It also has a higher mass penalty and higher fitting requirements, in addition to being far more expensive which limits the extent to which you can make that greater range work for you.
What's your reasoning for "you must spend this much time training" before you can claim Sov? The only practical consequence I'm seeing from this is making new players less relevant in large fleets and increasing their barrier to entry to Null warfare. |
HandelsPharmi
Pharmi on CharBazaar
1272
|
Posted - 2015.04.04 21:35:42 -
[202] - Quote
You can claim sov with theTech1 module as well, and this is a requires a propper fitted ship. so the limiting skill is not Adv. Infomorph , the skills for a fitting a more difficult to achieve. |
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
1998
|
Posted - 2015.04.04 21:53:14 -
[203] - Quote
baltec1 wrote: See structures for a fix to this. (hint: mission agents in sov space)
Seen it, don't like mission agents as a fix, because it creates no competition for space, since mission agents scale infinitely (Well, till you hit Tidi anyway, so 700 people or so at once operating from a single system since they spread out into neighbours a little if we take Osmon as a guide.) Also it encourages solo play.
Yes, I have the same opinion on highsec missions and would rather see vastly greater numbers of 'system missions' which are like anomalies and have multiple objectives for a fleet to work together on, but if you do them solo you only have to complete one primary objective for the thing to despawn. Payouts per internal objective rather than the entire site to encourage co-operation since you don't lose cash by sharing (Possibly small multiplier even for completing multiple primary objectives which would be super hard/impossible to do solo due to distance, timers, whatever). Pay out LP based on who owns the space and who has stations.
Not sure how that would translate well into Null space in terms of LP to avoid too much of an isk faucet, but being able to pick and chose which corp you get agents for doesn't sound like a particularly good plan either, that just sounds like 'we want to farm the best LP corp'. But failing a new form of PvE site, I guess randomly allocated agents would work. |
Cade Windstalker
Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra
334
|
Posted - 2015.04.04 22:43:57 -
[204] - Quote
Nevyn Auscent wrote:baltec1 wrote: See structures for a fix to this. (hint: mission agents in sov space)
Seen it, don't like mission agents as a fix, because it creates no competition for space, since mission agents scale infinitely (Well, till you hit Tidi anyway, so 700 people or so at once operating from a single system since they spread out into neighbours a little if we take Osmon as a guide.) Also it encourages solo play. Yes, I have the same opinion on highsec missions and would rather see vastly greater numbers of 'system missions' which are like anomalies and have multiple objectives for a fleet to work together on, but if you do them solo you only have to complete one primary objective for the thing to despawn. Payouts per internal objective rather than the entire site to encourage co-operation since you don't lose cash by sharing (Possibly small multiplier even for completing multiple primary objectives which would be super hard/impossible to do solo due to distance, timers, whatever). Pay out LP based on who owns the space and who has stations. Not sure how that would translate well into Null space in terms of LP to avoid too much of an isk faucet, but being able to pick and chose which corp you get agents for doesn't sound like a particularly good plan either, that just sounds like 'we want to farm the best LP corp'. But failing a new form of PvE site, I guess randomly allocated agents would work.
The vast majority of PvE content in Null currently is completeable by a solo ship and it's my understanding that this is the way the majority of null players do it because it maximizes their ISK income. Additional PvE content would be great, but seems outside the scope of the sov rework.
Just because it's possible for players to clump up around a single agent doesn't necessarily mean that it will happen, and if it does then their occupancy metrics in other systems will suffer and their space will be easier to take.
Also your original concern is somewhat moot since if you're fully utilizing a system's site spawns then you shouldn't have a problem hitting your occupancy metrics. There's no requirement that just the people using a system defend it so there's no requirement that a ton of people be packed into every system, and if we ever hit the point where every system in Player Controlled Null is being fully utilized I'll send the Game Design team a cake in congratulations on doing the impossible. |
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
1998
|
Posted - 2015.04.04 22:49:54 -
[205] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote: The vast majority of PvE content in Null currently is completeable by a solo ship and it's my understanding that this is the way the majority of null players do it because it maximizes their ISK income. Additional PvE content would be great, but seems outside the scope of the sov rework.
Just because it's possible for players to clump up around a single agent doesn't necessarily mean that it will happen, and if it does then their occupancy metrics in other systems will suffer and their space will be easier to take.
Also your original concern is somewhat moot since if you're fully utilizing a system's site spawns then you shouldn't have a problem hitting your occupancy metrics. There's no requirement that just the people using a system defend it so there's no requirement that a ton of people be packed into every system, and if we ever hit the point where every system in Player Controlled Null is being fully utilized I'll send the Game Design team a cake in congratulations on doing the impossible.
Just because the ratting index is crazy easy to get to V solo doesn't mean that occupancy is suitable for defending nodes against 30 minute raids. If you have to put out calls to five systems away to form up 20 or 30 people then you aren't going to be able to effectively defend space, and large alliances (I.E. Goons as a classic example) are going to still need vast swathes of land in order to provide for their members. If the potential occupancy is instead on level of a high sec lvl 4 system, so lets say..... 100 simultaneously. Then not only can you adjust the index so you can't max it solo but V actually means a large number of people working together, but you also have alliances only holding small areas since they don't need 1000 systems for their members.
While it seems unrelated this plays directly into the Entosis link, and into there being room in null for smaller alliances who don't join the big coalitions, since especially those smaller alliances need to be able to pack tightly. |
Cade Windstalker
Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra
334
|
Posted - 2015.04.04 23:03:37 -
[206] - Quote
Nevyn Auscent wrote:Just because the ratting index is crazy easy to get to V solo doesn't mean that occupancy is suitable for defending nodes against 30 minute raids. If you have to put out calls to five systems away to form up 20 or 30 people then you aren't going to be able to effectively defend space, and large alliances (I.E. Goons as a classic example) are going to still need vast swathes of land in order to provide for their members. If the potential occupancy is instead on level of a high sec lvl 4 system, so lets say..... 100 simultaneously. Then not only can you adjust the index so you can't max it solo but V actually means a large number of people working together, but you also have alliances only holding small areas since they don't need 1000 systems for their members.
While it seems unrelated this plays directly into the Entosis link, and into there being room in null for smaller alliances who don't join the big coalitions, since especially those smaller alliances need to be able to pack tightly.
Right now it takes a decent sized fleet far less than 30-40 minutes to burn through the first timer on a structure, and if you don't respond to the first timer then you have a time-stamped fight coming up in a few days that you can prepare for if, for whatever reason, you can't respond to someone going around reinforcing your stuff.
I don't think it's reasonable to force high-sec levels of occupancy on Null, nor is it realistic for a single player grinding a few hours a day to be able to maintain occupancy level 5 metrics on a system. Also the current problem of a few alliances controlling huge chunks of un-used space has nothing to do with alliances needing 1000 systems for their members. If you look at the daily activity levels even in Goon space they're not all at 5s. Alliances control vast swaths of space because it's easy to do so and provides a defensive buffer of boredom against attackers. |
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
1998
|
Posted - 2015.04.04 23:31:48 -
[207] - Quote
Point is not to require it, but to make it possible in a reasonable way. Agents aren't the best solution, but a random agent prevents LP farming of only the most valuable LP's, and means it can be done without introducing a new form of PvE, much as a form of PvE which enabled cooperation without forcing it or reducing profits would be great for all areas of space. |
Cade Windstalker
Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra
335
|
Posted - 2015.04.05 04:22:01 -
[208] - Quote
Nevyn Auscent wrote:Point is not to require it, but to make it possible in a reasonable way. Agents aren't the best solution, but a random agent prevents LP farming of only the most valuable LP's, and means it can be done without introducing a new form of PvE, much as a form of PvE which enabled cooperation without forcing it or reducing profits would be great for all areas of space.
If people recruit agents from only the most valuable LP stores then you can expect that to push the value of those LP down as a result of increased supply, especially if that manages to become the primary source of income for Null, which seems unlikely given the value of Null sites and anomalies compared to even a Null Sec mission reward and rat bounties.
Plus if done randomly then people would just gravitate to whichever agents give the best rewards or 're-roll' their agents until they got a good one worth keeping. |
Xe'Cara'eos
A Big Enough Lever
236
|
Posted - 2015.04.05 09:29:18 -
[209] - Quote
Getting a leetle off-topic guys... Can someone link the original entosis devblog? I can't find it to refer to.....
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.
|
rsantos
Mosquito Squadron Mordus Angels
41
|
Posted - 2015.04.05 11:18:43 -
[210] - Quote
Emmy Mnemonic wrote:rsantos wrote:The dirty bloblers have won! Hope you all have fun with the new sov laser cyno fitted to your carriers in 10% TiDi!
Well, I agree with you! Entosis-mechanisms gets rid of blobbing to do hit-point damage, but introduces blobbing to control the battlefield when entosising sov-structures. Status quo. And carriers? I can easily see Supers do this - can't be jammed, difficult for smaller groups like yours to kill them, they can ECM-burst both your DPS and logis. And the defenders have all the time in the world, they're not in a hurry. So, yes, there will be blobbing again. Sadly. But then blobbing has been the case all the time, entosis or no entosis - to gain control over the battlefield, you will need to blob in one way or another. Killing a ratter - conrol the battlefield by dropping and blob him with SBs, Recons and Black Ops. Small annoying 10-man Swedish pvp-gang in cruisers in Fountain - run away or blob them with Battleships. Usually run away though :-)
Blobbing will always be a winning tactic. Nerfing ship agility will only favor blobbing even more. The entosis link already had pretty bad down sides - no remote assistance - making kitting the only tank option. This change kills that option and does nothing for small fights. It make blobbing the only tanking option. |
|
Nolak Ataru
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
812
|
Posted - 2015.04.05 12:19:15 -
[211] - Quote
INB4 BootDomis, Ishtars, and Pantheon Carrier fleets. |
Thane Ansollare
Stay Frosty. A Band Apart.
0
|
Posted - 2015.04.05 12:57:44 -
[212] - Quote
Azure and Argent wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:The powergrid requirements for the T2 version are indeed difficult for frigates and destroyers. The T1 version is a much more viable option for frigates, but yes this mean we would expect ships of cruiser size or higher to have a lot of importance in contested sov warfare.
I'm glad to see you've decided to ignore whatever idiot came up with this line. Quote: This also means that we don't want to be using the Entosis Links to intentionally manipulate ship use. We've seen some people suggesting that we restrict Entosis Links to battleships, command ships or capital ships in order to buff those classes. Using the Entosis Link mechanics to artificially skew the meta in that way is not something we are interested in doing.
CCP Fozzie 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.
Except if you defeat your enemies on the field of battle with frigates apparently. The other changes would have been fine with out the elevated fitting needs of the T2 module.
If an alliance can't blap an inti they have other problems.
Maybe a better change would be to just remove/decrease MWD bloom bonus's while the module is active. Although with the locking range of frigates I don't think "trollceptors" were ever going to have a huge impact except to those who blanketly dock up whenever there's a neutral in system. |
Raphael Celestine
Celestine Inc.
58
|
Posted - 2015.04.05 13:56:36 -
[213] - Quote
Thane Ansollare wrote:CCP Fozzie 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. Except if you defeat your enemies on the field of battle with frigates apparently. The other changes would have been fine with out the elevated fitting needs of the T2 module. If an alliance can't blap an inti they have other problems. Maybe a better change would be to just remove/decrease MWD bloom bonus's while the module is active. Although with the locking range of frigates I don't think "trollceptors" were ever going to have a huge impact except to those who blanketly dock up whenever there's a neutral in system. If you actually do defeat your enemies with frigates, then the T1 E-link should be all you need.
I'm inclined to agree that trollceptors wouldn't necessarily have been a major issue, but the major advantage of the T2 mod is the extra range - and it's hard to see what a frigate/destroyer pilot who actually intends to fight would need with a 250km range anyway. A small-ship gang who can't keep a ship within 25km of the target can hardly claim to be 'controlling the grid', so they probably don't deserve to be able to make any capture progress. |
Jenshae Chiroptera
1221
|
Posted - 2015.04.05 17:13:39 -
[214] - Quote
The overwhelming problem with people saying this is a great idea is that they seem to only be thinking about it in terms of one roam or one battle. They aren't thinking about this in terms of having a constant stream of small gangs flying through your space.
"OMGADZ lookie thar pappy, we can getz us them SOV space!" "Yessie Sir, we be taking them SOVs .... but ..... erm .... how are we going to hold onto it for long if they can't?"
i.e. Fozzie Logic is creating griefer paradise.
CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids.
.
High Sec needs a stepping stone to other areas of space, where they can grow.
Fozzie is treating a symptom.
|
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
6697
|
Posted - 2015.04.05 17:36:13 -
[215] - Quote
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:The overwhelming problem with people saying this is a great idea is that they seem to only be thinking about it in terms of one roam or one battle. They aren't thinking about this in terms of having a constant stream of small gangs flying through your space.
"OMGADZ lookie thar pappy, we can getz us them SOV space!" "Yessie Sir, we be taking them SOVs .... but ..... erm .... how are we going to hold onto it for long if they can't?"
i.e. Fozzie Logic is creating griefer paradise. shaking up sov
op success
^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears.
Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
|
Cade Windstalker
Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra
337
|
Posted - 2015.04.05 18:05:31 -
[216] - Quote
rsantos wrote:Blobbing will always be a winning tactic. Nerfing ship agility will only favor blobbing even more. The entosis link already had pretty bad down sides - no remote assistance - making kitting the only tank option. This change kills that option and does nothing for small fights. It make blobbing the only tanking option.
There's absolutely nothing stopping you from keeping the module offline or even in your cargo bay until you have control of the grid, at which point you drop a Mobile Depot or just refit off a carrier and go about capturing.
Thus the flow of battle to reinforce a structure ends up going along the lines of:
- Initial attack by the aggressors. Link is activated and after initial cycle defending alliance is informed their structure is under attack.
- Defenders respond and either drop their own links or move to destroy those of the enemy. Depending on ships linking either side may target the other's links or assume them to be bait-tanked and ignore them in favor of more dangerous targets. Either way capture progress stalls while the enemy fleet is on grid.
- One side or the other is driven off the grid, the winner resumes ticking down their timer.
- 2 and 3 repeat until either the vulnerability period ends or the attacks by the aggressor cease.
The flow around a node would be similar except that there will be little to no initial capture progress as both sides show up expecting a fight to happen.
Of course this is hardly a comprehensive tactical overview and I'm sure others will come up with more and different strategies, but it's not really fair to say that the Entosis system is actually encouraging blobbing more than present systems are. At the very least splitting the fighting over multiple grids forces a fleet to split up, no matter how big of a blob they have.
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:The overwhelming problem with people saying this is a great idea is that they seem to only be thinking about it in terms of one roam or one battle. They aren't thinking about this in terms of having a constant stream of small gangs flying through your space.
"OMGADZ lookie thar pappy, we can getz us them SOV space!" "Yessie Sir, we be taking them SOVs .... but ..... erm .... how are we going to hold onto it for long if they can't?"
i.e. Fozzie Logic is creating griefer paradise.
Hence the massive downsides to the Entosis link. If you have decently high occupancy metrics that griefer roam is never going to even reinforce anything, but if they try you'll have a small gang to chase around your space and PvP with, one that has at least one member carrying a 1 million kg paper weight, and there's nothing wrong with that. It's only 4 hours ever day anyways, where as right now there's nothing stopping people from flitting around in sniper fits shooting POSes or structures to achieve roughly the same effect. |
Nolak Ataru
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
813
|
Posted - 2015.04.06 12:24:41 -
[217] - Quote
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. |
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction The Pursuit of Happiness
2033
|
Posted - 2015.04.06 14:19:07 -
[218] - Quote
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:The overwhelming problem with people saying this is a great idea is that they seem to only be thinking about it in terms of one roam or one battle. They aren't thinking about this in terms of having a constant stream of small gangs flying through your space.
"OMGADZ lookie thar pappy, we can getz us them SOV space!" "Yessie Sir, we be taking them SOVs .... but ..... erm .... how are we going to hold onto it for long if they can't?"
i.e. Fozzie Logic is creating griefer paradise.
you mena.. Exaclty like eve should be?
"If brute force does not solve your problem.... then you are surely not using enough!"
For the rest hire PoH |
Recruitment
|
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction The Pursuit of Happiness
2033
|
Posted - 2015.04.06 14:21:30 -
[219] - Quote
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.
"If brute force does not solve your problem.... then you are surely not using enough!"
For the rest hire PoH |
Recruitment
|
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction The Pursuit of Happiness
2033
|
Posted - 2015.04.06 14:25:22 -
[220] - Quote
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:I don't see any reason to make capital ships have a longer duration. Sure, they're more difficult to shoot down, but they're also more difficult to get into position and a lot more valuable of a target. It's not like shooting a linking subcap is going to reset the timer for that side, in fact it likely won't even stop their timer since many forces will use multiple entosis links on a single structure.
Yes, an entire fleet of dreadnoughts and carriers will easily win a link. Is that a bad thing? I say we should have more reasons to put capital ships in the line of fire, not less.
because otherwise things will develop into suicide triage drops to take the entosis effect on. You cannot realistically take out a surprise triage carrier that just cynoed in with an entosis before it gets a large effect.
How much it needs to be slower is something to e discussed, but that some differences must exist, I think there is no doubt abou t that.
"If brute force does not solve your problem.... then you are surely not using enough!"
For the rest hire PoH |
Recruitment
|
|
davet517
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
77
|
Posted - 2015.04.06 14:49:00 -
[221] - Quote
So, in order to alter the current "N+1" state of affairs you are creating a mechanic where you light up the primary for the opposing side and make it so that they can't be repped, can't warp, and dock, and are just about guaranteed to be slower than whatever is chasing them. This certainly won't lead to power blocs spamming thousands of entosis links to overwhelm any attacker's ability to clear them from the field.
I had to laugh when I watched Fozzie's interview where he said they're trying to avoid introducing changes where they know what the result will be. I guess that's easier to do for some people than it is for others.
The net result is that it's a nerf to renting. Renters docking up to avoid roaming gangs will result in rental regions being lit up with timers constantly, and landlords chasing their tails trying to cover them all. Precious moons will still be guarded by Super-Blobs.
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
|
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
2065
|
Posted - 2015.04.06 15:08:57 -
[222] - Quote
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.
Thats why I am hoping for small to xl e-links and small to xl capture annoms that are tied to occupied indexes. That way if you want to caputre a system that is not being used you can do it with frigs... but if you want to capture the capital system of a large alliance you will have to bring the big guns and thus put them up for potential loss... which hopefully will be the spark for large scale fights like b-r (one of the great things about b-r was it took place over several systems this if done well could be a great template for not only PR but future fights for sov in general)
There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people...
CCP Goliath wrote:
Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.
|
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
2065
|
Posted - 2015.04.06 15:11:01 -
[223] - Quote
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.
There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people...
CCP Goliath wrote:
Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.
|
Soldarius
Kosher Nostra The 99 Percent
1234
|
Posted - 2015.04.06 15:49:36 -
[224] - Quote
Any reason we can't have different size Entosis Links as well as T2 versions of each? Give T2 better fitting and such. We could also have the T1 consume more fuel.
edit: But there would need to be a reason to field the larger links. MEh. Not sounding terribly good. Maybe just ignore this idea. Just go with different sizes. No T2 links.
http://youtu.be/YVkUvmDQ3HY
|
rsantos
Mosquito Squadron Mordus Angels
42
|
Posted - 2015.04.06 16:27:50 -
[225] - Quote
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.
No... post-entosis sov you will still be chasing frigates reinforcing random systems for 4 hours. we will do our best to make sure you not "allowed" to play DOTA2! :P |
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
2065
|
Posted - 2015.04.06 17:50:55 -
[226] - Quote
rsantos 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. No... post-entosis sov you will still be chasing frigates reinforcing random systems for 4 hours. we will do our best to make sure you not "allowed" to play DOTA2! :P
the best will be after june a group like brave can go in and literally reinforce every cfc system from ihub to outpost... then it will be interesting if mittens forces the meatshields.... i mean equal members of the cfc like fcon to save goon space...
There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people...
CCP Goliath wrote:
Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.
|
Jenshae Chiroptera
1224
|
Posted - 2015.04.06 19:16:54 -
[227] - Quote
Soldarius wrote:Any reason we can't have different size Entosis Links as well ...? ... Thanks for the laugh. I just imagined Harry Potter asking in the wand shop about different wands, one with unicorn tail another with pixie hair....
CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids.
.
High Sec needs a stepping stone to other areas of space, where they can grow.
Fozzie is treating a symptom.
|
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans
2223
|
Posted - 2015.04.06 19:23:23 -
[228] - Quote
MeBiatch wrote:rsantos 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. No... post-entosis sov you will still be chasing frigates reinforcing random systems for 4 hours. we will do our best to make sure you not "allowed" to play DOTA2! :P the best will be after june a group like brave can go in and literally reinforce every cfc system from ihub to outpost... then it will be interesting if mittens forces the meatshields.... i mean equal members of the cfc like fcon to save goon space... That depends on whether or not we'll be babysitting the renters in branch. |
GeeShizzle MacCloud
584
|
Posted - 2015.04.06 20:21:08 -
[229] - Quote
Fozzie / Foxfour... could it be possible to get some degree of CREST endpoint to how often each character is using this module?
Much like there's new CREST endpoints detailing how much hp you've rep'd as a logi etc... itd be nice from a org point of view to be able to assign and reward those members doing gods work wielding the Entosis Link for both disruption and interruption.
(having a timestamp and location would be absolutely amazing!)
not sure if approaching it from a character standpoint or a structure log would be best, potentially structure. |
Iroquoiss Pliskin
Hedion University Amarr Empire
173
|
Posted - 2015.04.06 20:31:36 -
[230] - Quote
Rowells wrote:MeBiatch wrote:rsantos 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. No... post-entosis sov you will still be chasing frigates reinforcing random systems for 4 hours. we will do our best to make sure you not "allowed" to play DOTA2! :P the best will be after june a group like brave can go in and literally reinforce every cfc system from ihub to outpost... then it will be interesting if mittens forces the meatshields.... i mean equal members of the cfc like fcon to save goon space... That depends on whether or not we'll be babysitting the renters in branch.
From my experience in BoB-tymes, it would be best to either leave them as buffer to hold out on their own as long as possible, giving you time for w/e.
Or to revoke all access to stations overnight, seize and extort assets.
Going to be a fun-fun Summer.
( -í° -£-û -í°)
|
|
Nolak Ataru
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
813
|
Posted - 2015.04.06 22:28:54 -
[231] - Quote
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 ALWAYS escalate back and they can cancel the 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.
Again, drop drones and assist. Let the Pantheon Archons put 1 rep each on their designated Loki, and then everyone but the Loki can go play [insert game here] until a hostile cyno goes up or something big warps on grid. If a cyno goes up, unless it's a brick-tanked 1m EHP Proteus, it's going to die fairly quickly depending on the number of Archons / Chimeras on grid. If something warps in, even without TIDI there will be plenty of time for the Loki pilot to tell people to tab back to EVE and get ready to deal with whatever just came in.
e: And Brave can do whatever they want but I don't think they're going to commit titans and supers against a defending Pantheon fleet. |
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
2065
|
Posted - 2015.04.06 22:42:41 -
[232] - Quote
I dont get it... e link makes rr not work... so whats this panteon loki thing?
There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people...
CCP Goliath wrote:
Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.
|
GeeShizzle MacCloud
587
|
Posted - 2015.04.06 23:45:33 -
[233] - Quote
MeBiatch wrote:I dont get it... e link makes rr not work... so whats this panteon loki thing?
for control of the grid. |
Gyges Skyeye
Delusions of Adequacy Get Off My Lawn
19
|
Posted - 2015.04.06 23:47:04 -
[234] - Quote
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 |
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
2065
|
Posted - 2015.04.06 23:57:49 -
[235] - Quote
GeeShizzle MacCloud wrote:MeBiatch wrote:I dont get it... e link makes rr not work... so whats this panteon loki thing? for control of the grid.
What i would do to counter this design wise... make rr stack and based on sig radius. Make sentry drones 50mb and make it so carries can't use sub capital drones. I would then add fittings for fighters and make tech two fighters.
There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people...
CCP Goliath wrote:
Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.
|
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans
2229
|
Posted - 2015.04.07 00:06:43 -
[236] - Quote
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 the timer on the structure should be the one to have the count down. |
Cade Windstalker
Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra
340
|
Posted - 2015.04.07 00:33:43 -
[237] - Quote
Nolak Ataru 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 ALWAYS escalate back and they can cancel the 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. Again, drop drones and assist. Let the Pantheon Archons put 1 rep each on their designated Loki, and then everyone but the Loki can go play [insert game here] until a hostile cyno goes up or something big warps on grid. If a cyno goes up, unless it's a brick-tanked 1m EHP Proteus, it's going to die fairly quickly depending on the number of Archons / Chimeras on grid. If something warps in, even without TIDI there will be plenty of time for the Loki pilot to tell people to tab back to EVE and get ready to deal with whatever just came in. e: And Brave can do whatever they want but I don't think they're going to commit titans and supers against a defending Pantheon fleet.
This doesn't seem to be any sort of problem directly with the new Sov mechanics, and therefore not exactly relevant to this thread.
Besides, if you bring an all drone comp and go AFK I'll warp in a couple of bomber wings and laugh my arse off as I wipe a few billion in assets off the field for little to no cost...
There's always a counter if you think hard enough, and if there isn't CCP will nerf the doctrine until there's a counter. |
GeeShizzle MacCloud
587
|
Posted - 2015.04.07 02:02:37 -
[238] - Quote
MeBiatch wrote:GeeShizzle MacCloud wrote:MeBiatch wrote:I dont get it... e link makes rr not work... so whats this panteon loki thing? for control of the grid. What i would do to counter this design wise... make rr stack and based on sig radius. Make sentry drones 50mb and make it so carries can't use sub capital drones. I would then add fittings for fighters and make tech two fighters.
those are some ridiculously huge changes to the game as a whole let alone just to alleviate a pantheon loki doctrine. Considering there are still many many ways of defeating that in game without touching game mechanics or balance.
if you're going to pitch into a discussion about game design then please don't post reactively with such insanely OP suggestions until you exhaust all other avenues of countering WITHIN the confines of the games combat systems. |
Justin Cody
Tri-gun Psychotic Tendencies.
258
|
Posted - 2015.04.07 02:18:58 -
[239] - Quote
zerg rush for sov! |
Nolak Ataru
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
813
|
Posted - 2015.04.07 04:04:59 -
[240] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote:Nolak Ataru wrote:Again, drop drones and assist. Let the Pantheon Archons put 1 rep each on their designated Loki, and then everyone but the Loki can go play [insert game here] until a hostile cyno goes up or something big warps on grid. If a cyno goes up, unless it's a brick-tanked 1m EHP Proteus, it's going to die fairly quickly depending on the number of Archons / Chimeras on grid. If something warps in, even without TIDI there will be plenty of time for the Loki pilot to tell people to tab back to EVE and get ready to deal with whatever just came in. e: And Brave can do whatever they want but I don't think they're going to commit titans and supers against a defending Pantheon fleet. This doesn't seem to be any sort of problem directly with the new Sov mechanics, and therefore not exactly relevant to this thread. Besides, if you bring an all drone comp and go AFK I'll warp in a couple of bomber wings and laugh my arse off as I wipe a few billion in assets off the field for little to no cost... There's always a counter if you think hard enough, and if there isn't CCP will nerf the doctrine until there's a counter.
It's just bringing Pantheon and Boot Domis back for drone assist. And again, it takes little effort for the Loki pilots to say "Hey, bombers. Pull your drones". Should take 3 seconds or so. Bombs take 10 seconds to detonate. Bombers weren't a counter to Pantheon fleets then, and they won't be a counter to them now. If you expect to bomb the domis off the grid, the only FC I know who stuck around on grid for multiple bomber waves was CSM member corebloodbrothers, so if you're fighting The Volition Cult, you're in luck. It's no big trouble to warp a group of domis off grid to a safe or a planet. |
|
Cade Windstalker
Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra
342
|
Posted - 2015.04.07 04:17:29 -
[241] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:It's just bringing Pantheon and Boot Domis back for drone assist. And again, it takes little effort for the Loki pilots to say "Hey, bombers. Pull your drones". Should take 3 seconds or so. Bombs take 10 seconds to detonate. Bombers weren't a counter to Pantheon fleets then, and they won't be a counter to them now. If you expect to bomb the domis off the grid, the only FC I know who stuck around on grid for multiple bomber waves was CSM member corebloodbrothers, so if you're fighting The Volition Cult, you're in luck. It's no big trouble to warp a group of domis off grid to a safe or a planet.
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. |
Iroquoiss Pliskin
Hedion University Amarr Empire
180
|
Posted - 2015.04.07 04:31:05 -
[242] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote:There's always a counter if you think hard enough, and if there isn't CCP will nerf the doctrine until there's a counter.
Cool story.
Ishtar took how long exactly to get looked at?
And they targeted the wrong thing - this issue will keep coming back, mark my words.
( -í° -£-û -í°)
|
Auduin Samson
Do not disturb Sanctuary Pact
323
|
Posted - 2015.04.07 04:51:43 -
[243] - Quote
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
Deep Structure. The Bastion
0
|
Posted - 2015.04.07 06:38:58 -
[244] - Quote
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
238
|
Posted - 2015.04.07 08:57:23 -
[245] - Quote
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
Mentally Assured Destruction The Pursuit of Happiness
2036
|
Posted - 2015.04.07 11:22:15 -
[246] - Quote
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!"
For the rest hire PoH |
Recruitment
|
Aya Nova
Bearded BattleBears Brave Collective
11
|
Posted - 2015.04.07 12:16:28 -
[247] - Quote
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
1230
|
Posted - 2015.04.07 12:32:16 -
[248] - Quote
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.
.
High Sec needs a stepping stone to other areas of space, where they can grow.
Fozzie is treating a symptom.
|
Nolak Ataru
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
813
|
Posted - 2015.04.07 14:20:06 -
[249] - Quote
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
Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra
347
|
Posted - 2015.04.07 19:39:31 -
[250] - Quote
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
Hedion University Amarr Empire
183
|
Posted - 2015.04.07 20:00:16 -
[251] - Quote
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.
Turret-Equivalent of the Rapid ML Concept //
Make BS & BC Worth the Warp!
( -í° -£-û -í°)
|
Jenshae Chiroptera
1234
|
Posted - 2015.04.08 02:42:11 -
[252] - Quote
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. 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
.
High Sec needs a stepping stone to other areas of space, where they can grow
Fozzie is treating a symptom.
|
Iroquoiss Pliskin
Hedion University Amarr Empire
185
|
Posted - 2015.04.08 04:55:35 -
[253] - Quote
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. 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 -¼effort-¼ and "warm up" to be an effective bear poking tactic.
Turret-Equivalent of the Rapid ML Concept //
Make BS & BC Worth the Warp!
( -í° -£-û -í°)
|
Aya Nova
Bearded BattleBears Brave Collective
12
|
Posted - 2015.04.08 07:15:23 -
[254] - Quote
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
148
|
Posted - 2015.04.08 09:55:16 -
[255] - Quote
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!
Can I haz you're stuff?
[i][b]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. Payday for good workers has been postponed indefinitely. Pa
|
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
2016
|
Posted - 2015.04.08 10:09:18 -
[256] - Quote
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
Mentally Assured Destruction The Pursuit of Happiness
2043
|
Posted - 2015.04.08 10:50:10 -
[257] - Quote
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!"
For the rest hire PoH |
Recruitment
|
Xe'Cara'eos
A Big Enough Lever
242
|
Posted - 2015.04.08 11:00:41 -
[258] - Quote
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
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
Mentally Assured Destruction The Pursuit of Happiness
2046
|
Posted - 2015.04.08 15:53:59 -
[259] - Quote
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!"
For the rest hire PoH |
Recruitment
|
Cade Windstalker
Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra
349
|
Posted - 2015.04.08 16:04:30 -
[260] - Quote
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
1243
|
Posted - 2015.04.08 19:12:27 -
[261] - Quote
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
.
High Sec needs a stepping stone to other areas of space, where they can grow
Fozzie is treating a symptom.
|
Iroquoiss Pliskin
Hedion University Amarr Empire
190
|
Posted - 2015.04.08 19:21:57 -
[262] - Quote
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!
I'd glance over cargo bay volumes for most shiptypes of all races in a sec.
Turret-Equivalent of the Rapid ML Concept //
Make BS & BC Worth the Warp!
( -í° -£-û -í°)
|
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
2065
|
Posted - 2015.04.08 20:29:17 -
[263] - Quote
GeeShizzle MacCloud wrote:MeBiatch wrote:GeeShizzle MacCloud wrote:MeBiatch wrote:I dont get it... e link makes rr not work... so whats this panteon loki thing? for control of the grid. What i would do to counter this design wise... make rr stack and based on sig radius. Make sentry drones 50mb and make it so carries can't use sub capital drones. I would then add fittings for fighters and make tech two fighters. those are some ridiculously huge changes to the game as a whole let alone just to alleviate a pantheon loki doctrine. Considering there are still many many ways of defeating that in game without touching game mechanics or balance. if you're going to pitch into a discussion about game design then please don't post reactively with such insanely OP suggestions until you exhaust all other avenues of countering WITHIN the confines of the games combat systems.
TBH RR in its current form is way to big of a force multiplier. its one of the main reasons behind apex forces. Though if you were to make RR more tame it would go along long way to make the meta healthy.
As you point out you can have 50 archons all RR a Loki to make the only viable way to kill it is with alpha. This then causes you to bring enough dps to alpha threw a loki. though when you bring that much dps you need to tank dps and it just becomes a who can bring more ships game.
Now if RR had sig resolution built into the effectiveness of the mod it would to wonders to the game.
Lets use Capital RR as an example. Lets say now all RR has sig resolution built into it and the average sig resolution of a capital RR is 1000m or 1km.
now most capital ships have a sig radius greater then 1km so a capital ship will rep another capital ship for 100% of potential rep. but if that archon wants to rep its buddy in the battleship which has a sig radius of 400m this would mean that RR from that archon only applies at 40% effectiveness or in real numbers we go from 1500 armor repped per cycle to 600...
so now you would need over 2 capital reps on the loki to eq the amount repped on another archon.
THis would do wonders as typically RR mixed with crusiers which have low sig radius are the current meta. Though if Logistics ships and carriers could no longer rep a crusier for full amount this would then have drastic changes on the meta and might force bigger ships like BC and BS into the mix.
Also this is not a reactionary post to one fleet setup... its something i felt should have been added to the game when CCP increased the EHP of all ships and boosted Logistics ships back in 2007. That one change pushed pvp to escalate to the current meta we have today
There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people...
CCP Goliath wrote:
Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.
|
Iroquoiss Pliskin
Hedion University Amarr Empire
190
|
Posted - 2015.04.08 20:34:14 -
[264] - Quote
MeBiatch wrote: Lets use Capital RR as an example. Lets say now all RR has sig resolution built into it and the average sig resolution of a capital RR is 1000m or 1km.
now most capital ships have a sig radius greater then 1km so a capital ship will rep another capital ship for 100% of potential rep. but if that archon wants to rep its buddy in the battleship which has a sig radius of 400m this would mean that RR from that archon only applies at 40% effectiveness or in real numbers we go from 1500 armor repped per cycle to 600...
This idea is good idea.
Turret-Equivalent of the Rapid ML Concept //
Make BS & BC Worth the Warp!
( -í° -£-û -í°)
|
Fredric Wolf
Black Sheep Down Tactical Narcotics Team
72
|
Posted - 2015.04.08 21:07:28 -
[265] - Quote
Iroquoiss Pliskin wrote:MeBiatch wrote: Lets use Capital RR as an example. Lets say now all RR has sig resolution built into it and the average sig resolution of a capital RR is 1000m or 1km.
now most capital ships have a sig radius greater then 1km so a capital ship will rep another capital ship for 100% of potential rep. but if that archon wants to rep its buddy in the battleship which has a sig radius of 400m this would mean that RR from that archon only applies at 40% effectiveness or in real numbers we go from 1500 armor repped per cycle to 600...
This idea is good idea.
So I like where this is going. Now I will show you a few ways in which this would not work. 1 Armor ships would not have an equal leg because Shield ships tank increase sig size. Also MWD on anything not a frig or AHAC you are at or over 1k. These are just a couple easy hole in this. I do think there could be some ideas to make logi work but not make it the n+1. Maybe when you are receiving RR your resists are lowered. That could be tied into lore somehow. It would also make stacking reps make your ship very vulnerable as after so many reps your resists reach zero. Not a very fleshed out idea but an idea. |
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
2066
|
Posted - 2015.04.08 21:54:23 -
[266] - Quote
Fredric Wolf wrote:Iroquoiss Pliskin wrote:MeBiatch wrote: Lets use Capital RR as an example. Lets say now all RR has sig resolution built into it and the average sig resolution of a capital RR is 1000m or 1km.
now most capital ships have a sig radius greater then 1km so a capital ship will rep another capital ship for 100% of potential rep. but if that archon wants to rep its buddy in the battleship which has a sig radius of 400m this would mean that RR from that archon only applies at 40% effectiveness or in real numbers we go from 1500 armor repped per cycle to 600...
This idea is good idea. So I like where this is going. Now I will show you a few ways in which this would not work. 1 Armor ships would not have an equal leg because Shield ships tank increase sig size. Also MWD on anything not a frig or AHAC you are at or over 1k. These are just a couple easy hole in this. I do think there could be some ideas to make logi work but not make it the n+1. Maybe when you are receiving RR your resists are lowered. That could be tied into lore somehow. It would also make stacking reps make your ship very vulnerable as after so many reps your resists reach zero. Not a very fleshed out idea but an idea.
Two oprions. You make a new metric on unmodified sig radius . Example all bs for rr calc will have hard sig of 400m.
Ir the fact that makinh your ship larger will increase rr effectineffectiveness but at tge same time make it easier to hit.
There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people...
CCP Goliath wrote:
Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.
|
Noxisia Arkana
Deadspace Knights
424
|
Posted - 2015.04.08 22:43:17 -
[267] - Quote
One, I disagree that RR is broken. Since it's not the point of the thread I won't elaborate.
Two. I'm a little worried about all structures being flippable with the entosis link. I'm not sure if this is covered, but you're going to kill casual HS industrialists that set up a couple days of production. They'll show back up, and they'll have to play collect my cans in space, and try to flip the asset they bought back into their possession.
Maybe I'm missing something but that sounds screwed up. There should be some onus on the attacker to have to bring a decent sized force to dislodge an asset I've purchased and am using - rather than 1 dude noticing that there's no one at a structure and throwing 10 minutes of time at it.
This is especially multiplied in wormholes where logistics is already a huge pain in the ****. You have a slow weekend (i.e. people are traveling, doing yardwork, whatever) and you log in Sunday night - bam now you don't own any assets. Hope you logged off in a probing ship, so you can scout a hole and return with an entosis link.
Flipping Sov? Sure, go for it - it is what it is. Flipping personal/corporate structures? The disruption to game play this will cause to such a huge piece of the player base is just annoyingly large. There has to be a better way here, I thought the thought behind POS mechanics was it should be semi difficult require some time and assets to wipe out a tower. This puts everything on the defender, which is a complete reverse.
So if I grab an entosis link and throw it on an SOE ship I can troll wormhole corps during their prime time should they not log in and force them to play capture the flag with me or forfeit their assets |
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans
2236
|
Posted - 2015.04.08 23:19:15 -
[268] - Quote
Noxisia Arkana wrote:One, I disagree that RR is broken. Since it's not the point of the thread I won't elaborate.
Two. I'm a little worried about all structures being flippable with the entosis link. I'm not sure if this is covered, but you're going to kill casual HS industrialists that set up a couple days of production. They'll show back up, and they'll have to play collect my cans in space, and try to flip the asset they bought back into their possession.
Maybe I'm missing something but that sounds screwed up. There should be some onus on the attacker to have to bring a decent sized force to dislodge an asset I've purchased and am using - rather than 1 dude noticing that there's no one at a structure and throwing 10 minutes of time at it.
This is especially multiplied in wormholes where logistics is already a huge pain in the ****. You have a slow weekend (i.e. people are traveling, doing yardwork, whatever) and you log in Sunday night - bam now you don't own any assets. Hope you logged off in a probing ship, so you can scout a hole and return with an entosis link.
Flipping Sov? Sure, go for it - it is what it is. Flipping personal/corporate structures? The disruption to game play this will cause to such a huge piece of the player base is just annoyingly large. There has to be a better way here, I thought the thought behind POS mechanics was it should be semi difficult require some time and assets to wipe out a tower. This puts everything on the defender, which is a complete reverse.
So if I grab an entosis link and throw it on an SOE ship I can troll wormhole corps during their prime time should they not log in and force them to play capture the flag with me or forfeit their assets If no one in your wh can be bothered to check on it once every 24hrs that is your own prerogative. Also, structure guns. Use them. Also, seeing as it took one person to set it up, I don't see how a minimum of one to take it down is that bad.
Speaking of which, did anyone find out if the notifications will be api? |
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
2066
|
Posted - 2015.04.08 23:28:29 -
[269] - Quote
I was thinking about this too. I think the onus should be on the attacking alliance not the defending alliance . Let me explain. One of the things i hate about the current system is you have to rep structures. In the new system even if the other side doesn't show ypu still have to do the 10 annoms per reinforced structure . This imo is bad design. I think if the attacking alliance does not show for the fight you shouldn't be forced to rep/elink stuff.
I would make the first 5 capture annoms have a 30 min lifetime If no elink from the opposing alliace is initiated in any 5 annoms.
This way you only have to active defense when the enemy shows and limits the other side of the grind
There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people...
CCP Goliath wrote:
Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.
|
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans
2236
|
Posted - 2015.04.08 23:31:39 -
[270] - Quote
MeBiatch wrote:I was thinking about this too. I think the onus should be on the attacking alliance not the defending alliance . Let me explain. One of the things i hate about the current system is you have to rep structures. In the new system even if the other side doesn't show ypu still have to do the 10 annoms per reinforced structure . This imo is bad design. I think if the attacking alliance does not show for the fight you shouldn't be forced to rep/elink stuff.
I would make the first 5 capture annoms have a 30 min lifetime If no elink from the opposing alliace is initiated in any 5 annoms.
This way you only have to active defense when the enemy shows and limits the other side of the grind Will there even be capture points in wh space? |
|
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
2066
|
Posted - 2015.04.08 23:41:10 -
[271] - Quote
Rowells wrote:MeBiatch wrote:I was thinking about this too. I think the onus should be on the attacking alliance not the defending alliance . Let me explain. One of the things i hate about the current system is you have to rep structures. In the new system even if the other side doesn't show ypu still have to do the 10 annoms per reinforced structure . This imo is bad design. I think if the attacking alliance does not show for the fight you shouldn't be forced to rep/elink stuff.
I would make the first 5 capture annoms have a 30 min lifetime If no elink from the opposing alliace is initiated in any 5 annoms.
This way you only have to active defense when the enemy shows and limits the other side of the grind Will there even be capture points in wh space?
Not from what i understand unless they group wh systems into constellations.
There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people...
CCP Goliath wrote:
Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.
|
Nolak Ataru
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
815
|
Posted - 2015.04.08 23:51:39 -
[272] - Quote
How is it off topic to point out what the new FOTM would be after this change goes into play, and to reply to the incorrect points you attempted to bring up? I will wager you 500m that Boot Domis and Pantheons will be FOTM for Entosis Sov. |
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
2020
|
Posted - 2015.04.09 01:15:16 -
[273] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:How is it off topic to point out what the new FOTM would be after this change goes into play, and to reply to the incorrect points you attempted to bring up? I will wager you 500m that Boot Domis and Pantheons will be FOTM for Entosis Sov. You did notice you can't RR someone using the Entosis, you seem to have missed that small issue in your theories. And so people will field BS's and Capitals in Entosis Sov, that's a 'bad' thing having people field full fleets? And here I thought most people were complaining that no-one will field anything of value. |
Nolak Ataru
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
816
|
Posted - 2015.04.09 02:24:38 -
[274] - Quote
Nevyn Auscent wrote:Nolak Ataru wrote:How is it off topic to point out what the new FOTM would be after this change goes into play, and to reply to the incorrect points you attempted to bring up? I will wager you 500m that Boot Domis and Pantheons will be FOTM for Entosis Sov. You did notice you can't RR someone using the Entosis, you seem to have missed that small issue in your theories. And so people will field BS's and Capitals in Entosis Sov, that's a 'bad' thing having people field full fleets? And here I thought most people were complaining that no-one will field anything of value. The Domis and Pantheons would be used to control the grid, not necessarily to hold the Entosis link itself. It's a "bad thing" when it's "Whoever manages to deploy their Archons first gets the system". There's a reason the Pantheon doctrine was so powerful that BL or whoever was going to drop sniper Alpha Naglfars instead of DPS Moros: Serious EHP coupled with capital RR and 1100 DPS Sentry Drones (if my math's correct), and the ability to refit on-the-spot to boot! |
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
2066
|
Posted - 2015.04.09 02:26:46 -
[275] - Quote
Nevyn Auscent wrote:Nolak Ataru wrote:How is it off topic to point out what the new FOTM would be after this change goes into play, and to reply to the incorrect points you attempted to bring up? I will wager you 500m that Boot Domis and Pantheons will be FOTM for Entosis Sov. You did notice you can't RR someone using the Entosis, you seem to have missed that small issue in your theories. And so people will field BS's and Capitals in Entosis Sov, that's a 'bad' thing having people field enveloping fleet sizes resulting in an Apex force? And here I thought most people were complaining that no-one will want to fight in tidi forever.
FYP
There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people...
CCP Goliath wrote:
Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.
|
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
2066
|
Posted - 2015.04.09 02:29:12 -
[276] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:Nevyn Auscent wrote:Nolak Ataru wrote:How is it off topic to point out what the new FOTM would be after this change goes into play, and to reply to the incorrect points you attempted to bring up? I will wager you 500m that Boot Domis and Pantheons will be FOTM for Entosis Sov. You did notice you can't RR someone using the Entosis, you seem to have missed that small issue in your theories. And so people will field BS's and Capitals in Entosis Sov, that's a 'bad' thing having people field full fleets? And here I thought most people were complaining that no-one will field anything of value. The Domis and Pantheons would be used to control the grid, not necessarily to hold the Entosis link itself. It's a "bad thing" when it's "Whoever manages to deploy their Archons first gets the system". There's a reason the Pantheon doctrine was so powerful that BL or whoever was going to drop sniper Alpha Naglfars instead of DPS Moros: Serious EHP coupled with capital RR and 1100 DPS Sentry Drones (if my math's correct), the ability to refit on-the-spot, two pickles, ketchup, hold the onions, on a sesame seed bun.
how about this the extra drone or fighter per level for the carrier bonus gets changed to fighter per level. that way you can only use 5 sentries or 10 if you use 5 drone control units. so take that 1100 dps and change it to 550
There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people...
CCP Goliath wrote:
Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.
|
Nolak Ataru
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
818
|
Posted - 2015.04.09 02:34:36 -
[277] - Quote
MeBiatch wrote:how about this the extra drone or fighter per level for the carrier bonus gets changed to fighter per level. that way you can only use 5 sentries or 10 if you use 5 drone control units. so take that 1100 dps and change it to 550
OK..... that's still ~5000 DPS assigned to each Loki. 255 / fleet, call it 230 for actual people non-boosting (i dont know the actual numbers) that's 23 "squads" of 9 carriers + 1 loki, which equals 115,000 DPS / 255 man fleet. |
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
2066
|
Posted - 2015.04.09 03:23:42 -
[278] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:MeBiatch wrote:how about this the extra drone or fighter per level for the carrier bonus gets changed to fighter per level. that way you can only use 5 sentries or 10 if you use 5 drone control units. so take that 1100 dps and change it to 550 OK..... that's still ~5000 DPS assigned to each Loki. 255 / fleet, call it 230 for actual people non-boosting (i dont know the actual numbers) that's 23 "squads" of 9 carriers + 1 loki, which equals 115,000 DPS / 255 man fleet.
yeah and you are going to have 1020 pilots for each structure capture? remember you need to take 10 annoms over the constellation and you get 5 annoms at a time.
so that 115,000 dps is really 23000 per annom that you are defending in your home region.
moreover if ccp added my ideas on RR then those loki's would be meat and your carriers would have to self target. and at that point a bunch of celestis will shut the fleet down... which will mean you need a fleet to clear the celestis. which means they need to a fleet to counter that and so on...
its simple fix RR and the new system is promising... if you dont then you are just replacing structure grind with elink grind only difference is the use of the apex force.
There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people...
CCP Goliath wrote:
Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.
|
Nolak Ataru
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
818
|
Posted - 2015.04.09 04:31:51 -
[279] - Quote
MeBiatch wrote:yeah and you are going to have 1020 pilots for each structure capture? remember you need to take 10 annoms over the constellation and you get 5 annoms at a time. example you have a system with an ihub an outpost and a tcu... each come out around the same time you now have 15 active capture annoms around 5 systems.... you have to figure out how to divide your forces... now lets say that all 5 systems have all been reinforced and everything comes out at the same time now you have 5x3= 15 x 5 =75 capture annoms over the constallation. so that 115,000 dps is really 1533dps per annom. moreover if ccp added my ideas on RR then those loki's would be meat and your carriers would have to self target. and at that point a bunch of celestis will shut the fleet down... which will mean you need a fleet to clear the celestis. which means they need to a fleet to counter that and so on... its simple fix RR and the new system is promising... if you dont then you are just replacing structure grind with elink grind only difference is the use of the apex force. No, you just need 1x fleet per gate, really, with a smattering of insta-locking ceptors and a handful of bubbles in a cargo container or two. And you're assuming there's only 1x 255-man fleet in system. We pushed 6-700 last system, and I don't know how many we crammed into ZXB. Additionally, a seriously tanked Loki has 500K+ EHP with Mid Slaves, IIRC. You can swap to 1m EHP long-point Proteii easily. It doesn't matter how small it's sig is if 9x archons are sending 1x Capital Repper (1500 / cycle) his way; he'll get his reps and eat his cake too.
As for Celestis: Remote Sensor Boosters are a thing. Same with Falcons and Projected ECCM. |
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
2020
|
Posted - 2015.04.09 09:13:36 -
[280] - Quote
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. |
|
Nolak Ataru
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
818
|
Posted - 2015.04.09 12:26:23 -
[281] - Quote
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. |
Xe'Cara'eos
A Big Enough Lever
251
|
Posted - 2015.04.09 13:18:55 -
[282] - Quote
I think the idea of entosis is to cause a state where it's relatively easy to go round the side of big fleets, and start harassing their home systems, so the attackers also need to consider their own defense, if only from small nuisances
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.
|
Raphael Celestine
Celestine Inc.
64
|
Posted - 2015.04.09 14:41:11 -
[283] - Quote
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
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
818
|
Posted - 2015.04.09 15:35:09 -
[284] - Quote
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
Society of Mechanics Engineers and Gearheads
1
|
Posted - 2015.04.09 16:10:21 -
[285] - Quote
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 1-+ hours if they have war-decced someone else. |
SFM Hobb3s
Wrecking Shots Black Legion.
284
|
Posted - 2015.04.09 16:58:11 -
[286] - Quote
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
1272
|
Posted - 2015.04.09 17:03:35 -
[287] - Quote
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
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
818
|
Posted - 2015.04.09 17:24:22 -
[288] - Quote
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 1-+ 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
6708
|
Posted - 2015.04.09 18:09:41 -
[289] - Quote
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.
^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears.
Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
|
Varyah
I am Forever of the Stars
8
|
Posted - 2015.04.09 23:44:36 -
[290] - Quote
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
Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra
353
|
Posted - 2015.04.10 06:24:05 -
[291] - Quote
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
Justified Chaos Spaceship Bebop
247
|
Posted - 2015.04.10 09:41:46 -
[292] - Quote
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
Mentally Assured Destruction The Pursuit of Happiness
2050
|
Posted - 2015.04.10 10:26:44 -
[293] - Quote
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!"
For the rest hire PoH |
Recruitment
|
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction The Pursuit of Happiness
2050
|
Posted - 2015.04.10 10:27:50 -
[294] - Quote
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!"
For the rest hire PoH |
Recruitment
|
Nolak Ataru
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
818
|
Posted - 2015.04.10 12:24:12 -
[295] - Quote
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
MASS A DEATH Mordus Angels
9
|
Posted - 2015.04.10 12:43:45 -
[296] - Quote
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. |
Nolak Ataru
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
818
|
Posted - 2015.04.10 13:41:35 -
[297] - Quote
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
1266
|
Posted - 2015.04.10 14:12:57 -
[298] - Quote
"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
.
High Sec needs a stepping stone to other areas of space, where they can grow
Fozzie is treating a symptom.
|
Varyah
I am Forever of the Stars
9
|
Posted - 2015.04.10 14:47:55 -
[299] - Quote
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
6708
|
Posted - 2015.04.10 15:28:20 -
[300] - Quote
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
^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears.
Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
|
|
Chen Chillin
Deep Structure. The Bastion
0
|
Posted - 2015.04.11 01:07:07 -
[301] - Quote
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.
|
Tejoe Nightstar
Society of Mechanics Engineers and Gearheads
1
|
Posted - 2015.04.11 01:56:08 -
[302] - Quote
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. |
d0cTeR9
Astro Technologies SpaceMonkey's Alliance
120
|
Posted - 2015.04.11 01:58:20 -
[303] - Quote
Royally wrote: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.
LOL have you looked which alliance you are in? |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
6708
|
Posted - 2015.04.11 03:19:50 -
[304] - Quote
d0cTeR9 wrote:Royally wrote: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. LOL have you looked which alliance you are in? Yeah. We can't keep mobile fleets up for months indefinitely
But Moa can.
... our 0.0 nightmare will be ended by such people huh
Not like we can sustain larger numbers always simply because we're larger in general or anything... not like people larger than moa haven't found this out in borefests. But hey.
Shooting EntosisHitPoints will be different
^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears.
Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
|
Raphael Celestine
Celestine Inc.
65
|
Posted - 2015.04.11 10:22:28 -
[305] - Quote
Alavaria Fera wrote:Yeah. We can't keep mobile fleets up for months indefinitely But Moa can. ... our 0.0 nightmare will be ended by such people huh Not like we can sustain larger numbers always simply because we're larger in general or anything... not like people larger than moa haven't found this out in borefests. But hey. Shooting EntosisHitPoints will be different The CFC is very, very good at putting numbers on the field and keeping them there - there's no question about that. I doubt that many attackers can match you one-to-one with 255-man cap fleets at all, let alone keep doing so for longer than you can.
I can believe that Moa or someone like them could field two or three 30-man cruiser fleets (or BLOPs gangs, or interceptor wings...) for each CFC 255-man cap fleet, and keep those in the field essentially indefinitely.
The question then is whether those 30-man fleets can use their superior mobility to beat the defenders to enough of the capture nodes to pose a serious threat. There's no way they'll win any contest that a defending heavy fleet gets to, but they've got at least five possible targets at any one time, spread over half-a-dozen potential systems, respawning in locations that the defenders cannot predict in advance. At that point, 'drop so much force that the defenders can't engage' starts looking a lot less like a guaranteed victory.
Of course, that's assuming only one defending heavy fleet. No doubt the CFC could field half-a-dozen at once if they really needed to - enough to dedicate one to each possible capture node, and still have forces left to camp the gates. That should be enough to guarantee victory against virtually any attack... any one attack.
What happens when Gevlon digs a little deeper into his warchest and hires mercenaries to attack five constellations at once? When WH corps are hitting OAs behind the front lines at the same time, to weaken the defences against raiders looking for ratters to hunt? When half-a-dozen NPC-null groups see the chaos, and decide to pile in and see how many mining/customs office kill-mails they can extract?
"Numbers and organisation" can win a war very effectively. If you mobilise them against a specific enemy, you're 100% right in saying that you either wouldn't lose any space at all, or would just take it back immediately. But winning a war is one thing; stamping out brushfires is another one entirely. When the barrier to entry for attacking sov is a handful of subcaps, large coalitions aren't going to have the luxury of mobilising all their forces against a single target, they're going to be playing whack-a-mole against an endless stream of smaller groups, with new ones always waiting in the wings to take over as the old ones get bored or run out of resources. They might not have much chance of actually holdling sov once they take it, but they'll come anyway - there's always someone convinced that they're going to be the lucky one-in-a-thousand who does. And others won't even try - they'll attack because "GRRR GOONS", or for the fights, or just to watch the world burn... |
Cade Windstalker
Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra
353
|
Posted - 2015.04.11 12:22:09 -
[306] - Quote
Yun Kuai wrote: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.
If the enemy can come on grid and blap off your Entosis ships then you're not actually controlling grid, are you? You controlled the grid, but the enemy came on and changed that. At that point you have to react. Maybe you put something tankier on Entosis duty, maybe you throw up bubbles, catch their fleet, and blap it off the grid.
It's not like we're talking about one ship showing up and shooting your Frigate that's the lynch pin of the whole cap, you can be running this thing off of an over-tanked Command Ship, HIC, or T3 easily.
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.
The counter to 50 Logi and 1 T3 is 25 Griffins, 10 T1 Logi cruisers, and a Bhaalgorn. |
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
2067
|
Posted - 2015.04.11 14:38:31 -
[307] - Quote
lets say every ihub/tcu/outpost in the RFY constellation in deklein gets reinforced. how would the CFC defend up to 370 capture annoms over 13 systems? and this is just one constellation lets say that the entire deklein region gets reinforced that would be well over 1000 caputre events... that would spread those large fleets rather thin if you ask me... making smaller 3rd party high skill level pvp alliances viable. vs the 1000 people on one grid f1 monkeys
There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people...
CCP Goliath wrote:
Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.
|
Nolak Ataru
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
820
|
Posted - 2015.04.11 16:13:10 -
[308] - Quote
MeBiatch wrote:lets say every ihub/tcu/outpost in the RFY constellation in deklein gets reinforced. how would the CFC defend up to 370 capture annoms over 13 systems? and this is just one constellation lets say that the entire deklein region gets reinforced that would be well over 1000 caputre events... that would spread those large fleets rather thin if you ask me... making smaller 3rd party high skill level pvp alliances viable. vs the 1000 people on one grid f1 monkeys
First: How do you think they'll reinforce 370 anoms? Second: How do you think they'll reinforce 370 anoms without anyone putting up resistance?
As of right now, there's 635 online in GSF alliance chat. I wonder how high that will go with an emergency CTA ping... |
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
2067
|
Posted - 2015.04.11 16:21:09 -
[309] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:MeBiatch wrote:lets say every ihub/tcu/outpost in the RFY constellation in deklein gets reinforced. how would the CFC defend up to 370 capture annoms over 13 systems? and this is just one constellation lets say that the entire deklein region gets reinforced that would be well over 1000 caputre events... that would spread those large fleets rather thin if you ask me... making smaller 3rd party high skill level pvp alliances viable. vs the 1000 people on one grid f1 monkeys First: How do you think they'll reinforce 370 anoms? Second: How do you think they'll reinforce 370 anoms without anyone putting up resistance? As of right now, there's 635 online in GSF alliance chat. I wonder how high that will go with an emergency CTA ping...
they dont have to reinforce 370 annoms... they have to reinforce things like ihubs and outposts which spawn 10 capture annoms each.
lets say cfc is busy in delve and a group of players take advantage of the primetime and reinforce all of the rfy constellation that will result in 370 caputure annoms when reinforce is done...
now lets say that time is the same time that a caputre for nol is going on... now the cfc has to split its forces once between nol and rfy and then 13 more times to caputre the annoms...
There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people...
CCP Goliath wrote:
Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.
|
Nolak Ataru
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
820
|
Posted - 2015.04.11 16:50:29 -
[310] - Quote
MeBiatch wrote:Nolak Ataru wrote:MeBiatch wrote:lets say every ihub/tcu/outpost in the RFY constellation in deklein gets reinforced. how would the CFC defend up to 370 capture annoms over 13 systems? and this is just one constellation lets say that the entire deklein region gets reinforced that would be well over 1000 caputre events... that would spread those large fleets rather thin if you ask me... making smaller 3rd party high skill level pvp alliances viable. vs the 1000 people on one grid f1 monkeys First: How do you think they'll reinforce 370 anoms? Second: How do you think they'll reinforce 370 anoms without anyone putting up resistance? As of right now, there's 635 online in GSF alliance chat. I wonder how high that will go with an emergency CTA ping... they dont have to reinforce 370 annoms... they have to reinforce things like ihubs and outposts which spawn 10 capture annoms each. lets say cfc is busy in delve and a group of players take advantage of the primetime and reinforce all of the rfy constellation that will result in 370 caputure annoms when reinforce is done... now lets say that time is the same time that a caputre for nol is going on... now the cfc has to split its forces once between nol and rfy and then 13 more times to caputre the annoms...
What part of "GSF has 12,443 members do people not understand? We can field 48 255-man fleets if needed. Our coalition has god-knows how many members. Do people honestly think that we cannot defend our Sov, or steamroll others? |
|
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
2067
|
Posted - 2015.04.11 17:04:26 -
[311] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:MeBiatch wrote:Nolak Ataru wrote:MeBiatch wrote:lets say every ihub/tcu/outpost in the RFY constellation in deklein gets reinforced. how would the CFC defend up to 370 capture annoms over 13 systems? and this is just one constellation lets say that the entire deklein region gets reinforced that would be well over 1000 caputre events... that would spread those large fleets rather thin if you ask me... making smaller 3rd party high skill level pvp alliances viable. vs the 1000 people on one grid f1 monkeys First: How do you think they'll reinforce 370 anoms? Second: How do you think they'll reinforce 370 anoms without anyone putting up resistance? As of right now, there's 635 online in GSF alliance chat. I wonder how high that will go with an emergency CTA ping... they dont have to reinforce 370 annoms... they have to reinforce things like ihubs and outposts which spawn 10 capture annoms each. lets say cfc is busy in delve and a group of players take advantage of the primetime and reinforce all of the rfy constellation that will result in 370 caputure annoms when reinforce is done... now lets say that time is the same time that a caputre for nol is going on... now the cfc has to split its forces once between nol and rfy and then 13 more times to caputre the annoms... What part of "GSF has 12,443 members do people not understand? We can field 48 255-man fleets if needed. Our coalition has god-knows how many members. Do people honestly think that we cannot defend our Sov, or steamroll others?
Honestly if you guys can pull off 48 full fleets you win eve... do i think it will happen? no... most fleets i have seen from cfc is what like 5-6 full fleets?
There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people...
CCP Goliath wrote:
Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.
|
Nolak Ataru
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
820
|
Posted - 2015.04.11 18:40:37 -
[312] - Quote
MeBiatch wrote:Honestly if you guys can pull off 48 full fleets you win eve... do i think it will happen? no... most fleets i have seen from cfc is what like 5-6 full fleets?
Still more than enough if we split those fleets into smaller groups and drive out whoever is trying to take our SOV. |
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
2067
|
Posted - 2015.04.11 19:05:03 -
[313] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:MeBiatch wrote:Honestly if you guys can pull off 48 full fleets you win eve... do i think it will happen? no... most fleets i have seen from cfc is what like 5-6 full fleets? Still more than enough if we split those fleets into smaller groups and drive out whoever is trying to take our SOV.
255*6 = 1530 people now lets say you split those even between those 13 systems now thats 117 per system and even less per annom... that is low enough for a medium sized force to engage... basically what i am saying is the new system is going to make small to medium high skilled forces rather effective.
I am just saying you might have more fights then you anticipate... especially if you think you are going to steam roll the south and leave the north un protected...
There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people...
CCP Goliath wrote:
Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.
|
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
6709
|
Posted - 2015.04.11 22:08:31 -
[314] - Quote
Some people are oddly desperate to defend their fantasy of ending our 0.0 dream nightmare.
Relax.
CCP has you covered.
Lasers.
If it doesn't work out I'm sure there'll be some "rebalancing" to give you new hope. Maybe making everyone more tired or something like that.
Gate jumping fatigue that interceptors get a role bonus to the reduction of.
^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears.
Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
|
Wanda Fayne
Gurlz with Gunz
76
|
Posted - 2015.04.11 23:32:45 -
[315] - Quote
Alavaria Fera wrote:Some people are oddly desperate to defend their fantasy of ending our 0.0 dream nightmare.
Relax.
CCP has you covered.
Lasers.
If it doesn't work out I'm sure there'll be some "rebalancing" to give you new hope. Maybe making everyone more tired or something like that.
Gate jumping fatigue that interceptors get a role bonus to the reduction of.
Maybe you could rent out those lasers? |
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans
2241
|
Posted - 2015.04.12 00:44:16 -
[316] - Quote
what page did this become a epeen swinging competition? |
Anhenka
Infinite Point Nulli Secunda
1383
|
Posted - 2015.04.12 00:52:19 -
[317] - Quote
Rowells wrote:what page did this become a epeen swinging competition?
1 |
d0cTeR9
Astro Technologies SpaceMonkey's Alliance
121
|
Posted - 2015.04.12 01:15:33 -
[318] - Quote
MeBiatch wrote:lets say every ihub/tcu/outpost in the RFY constellation in deklein gets reinforced. how would the CFC defend up to 370 capture annoms over 13 systems? and this is just one constellation lets say that the entire deklein region gets reinforced that would be well over 1000 caputre events... that would spread those large fleets rather thin if you ask me... making smaller 3rd party high skill level pvp alliances viable. vs the 1000 people on one grid f1 monkeys
I saw a move-OP with over 1000 supers and caps a few weeks ago. Those were alts in CFC moving SOME of their caps and supers to fountain.
Multiple of those OPs happened during that week with similar numbers.
So yes, CFC can hold its sov. Just like the other large coalitions can.
Those new changes will only reinforce teamwork between alliances. So.... Bigger coalitions will form. |
Iroquoiss Pliskin
Hedion University Amarr Empire
232
|
Posted - 2015.04.12 01:23:50 -
[319] - Quote
Absent further information, the respectable participants of this completely non-biased, non-Illusions de Grandeur discussion have determined the following TL;DR:
Bigger Better.
BUT THEY'RE BRINGING IN RIFTERS, MAN - Rifters! \m/
// Turret-Equivalent of the Rapid ML Concept
//
Cruisers Online - [Damage done in PvP by Shiptype]
|
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
6710
|
Posted - 2015.04.12 03:05:16 -
[320] - Quote
d0cTeR9 wrote:MeBiatch wrote:lets say every ihub/tcu/outpost in the RFY constellation in deklein gets reinforced. how would the CFC defend up to 370 capture annoms over 13 systems? and this is just one constellation lets say that the entire deklein region gets reinforced that would be well over 1000 caputre events... that would spread those large fleets rather thin if you ask me... making smaller 3rd party high skill level pvp alliances viable. vs the 1000 people on one grid f1 monkeys I saw a move-OP with over 1000 supers and caps a few weeks ago. Those were alts in CFC moving SOME of their caps and supers to fountain. Multiple of those OPs happened during that week with similar numbers. So yes, CFC can hold its sov. Just like the other large coalitions can. Those new changes will only reinforce teamwork between alliances. So.... Bigger coalitions will form. People make amazing assumptions about how many FCs we have. Maybe you should come down with a sov laser and see deklein
^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears.
Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
|
|
Sarah Eginald
Git-R-Done Logistics Git-R-Done Inc
2
|
Posted - 2015.04.12 03:45:08 -
[321] - Quote
I hope these changes might make it easier for smaller groups to take sov. Not because of superior force but lack of interest in the large powers to keep outer non crucial systems.
An example would be say a non useful that does not have any high value moons. A small alliance can take the system. The larger alliance may keep them neutral but not take the system back because it gives them targets to kill. The smaller alliance would have a foothold in null sec.
Also larger alliances can use the small alliances as buffer against invasion from another large group.
Most alliances that may want to take sov would be no match for the mega alliances and coalitions like the CFC or any other mega alliance. |
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans
2242
|
Posted - 2015.04.12 05:26:02 -
[322] - Quote
d0cTeR9 wrote:MeBiatch wrote:lets say every ihub/tcu/outpost in the RFY constellation in deklein gets reinforced. how would the CFC defend up to 370 capture annoms over 13 systems? and this is just one constellation lets say that the entire deklein region gets reinforced that would be well over 1000 caputre events... that would spread those large fleets rather thin if you ask me... making smaller 3rd party high skill level pvp alliances viable. vs the 1000 people on one grid f1 monkeys I saw a move-OP with over 1000 supers and caps a few weeks ago. Those were alts in CFC moving SOME of their caps and supers to fountain. Multiple of those OPs happened during that week with similar numbers. So yes, CFC can hold its sov. Just like the other large coalitions can. Those new changes will only reinforce teamwork between alliances. So.... Bigger coalitions will form. Goons holding dek? sure.
CFC members keeping the same level of control in their own space? not so much.
E: unless, of course, every current sov holding entity sets aside their differences and focuses efforts against non-sov holders. That would be, to say the least, an interesting development. |
Rain6637
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
31009
|
Posted - 2015.04.12 06:56:53 -
[323] - Quote
Why Entosis?
Fozzie, it's still unclear in my mind why Entosis is being picked as the way forward. Perhaps if I explain my interpretation of Entosis, you can help me fill in the blanks.
1. Compared to what is currently required for flipping Sov, Entosis as a module is incredibly OP.
2. To balance the OP-ness of Entosis, Entosis vulnerability is limited to a small time window.
You've mentioned your dislike of EHP based objectives, and I can understand that. I disagree with it, but I understand the sentiment.
Military control of the grid is mentioned as a key aspect of Entosis, but it's already a component of Sov and ownership warfare. It's not a revolutionary thing that Entosis will enable.
The popular belief and often stated justification for Entosis is the scalability (based on the defending force). But. Like military control, I don't think defensive scalability is unique to Entosis either. I don't understand why it's cited as being new to Entosis.
It seems to me that you're removing the EHP grind, and leaving the timers in place. Of the two, the timers are by far the least engaging aspect of Sov gameplay, but they're being left alone. (?)
Why are you not going with a solution that reduces both the EHP grind and timers equally? Why Entosis?
The potential for griefing is going to be a lot higher with Entosis. At least with the renter business model, there is a commitment to defend systems by a type of allied force, however weak. I mean, station services harassment and extortion is about to become a legitimate profession.
You can make Sov warfare more linear right now, without involving Entosis. Disconnect station ownership from sov like you plan to do with Entosis, and simplify the timers between shield, and armor, and onlining.
To put it simply, there are ways within Dominion sov to reward the defending force willing to put up a fight. The consequences are already bad enough for not maintaining an active presence in sov. If you're not already following what nearly happened in ED-L9T, NC came within 2 minutes of losing Sov to a group of 20 Ishtars. On two separate TCU timers.
Which, by the way, were the only four minutes that NC was present in that system in four days.
Timers in general, and invulnerability... imo... are indications of sloppy game design and room for improvement. Invulnerability is video game make-believe in its purest form. Surely, there are better ways to reward defenders for fighting until they have zero military control. In contrast, timers allow players to log out, instead of being active and engaging. (why are timers OK?)
Are you sure it's a worthwhile change to enable small groups to take and hold Sov? The way I see it, lowering the barrier to entry only makes it easier to gain a false sense of hope. The players who occupy most sov systems are renters, and these are the very same people who will occupy sov systems post-Entosis.
Do you know they do things like attempt to repair station services with ratting carriers that are either so unskilled or afraid of four or five Ishtars (without logi) to risk a single Triage cycle? They're using T1 logi drones on Thanatoses at undock. Is this the group you should be catering to?
At least with EHP objectives, progress scales with the force committed to killing a structure. Timers are absolute no matter what size force you have, big or small.
EHP objectives are decent, compared to timers. Timers that pause the game and give no incentive for being logged in. I mean, I'm there in space, looking to interact with the game, but when I attempt to lock a structure during a timer, I get a popup telling me there is no gameplay to be had... despite my presence being uncontested.
I want to affect someone, but I can't, despite having 100% military control of the grid. It's about to be this way across all systems owned by an alliance, 20 hours of the day?
This took less than an hour just now, Sisi of course. Undisturbed. But it's the situation you hope to fix with Entosis, right? If you leave the timers in place, are you really changing anything? http://i.imgur.com/qXFdgXS.png
Don't you think SBU timers are enough warning? You know how jump fatigue reduced the radius of help that can arrive to an engagement, and effectively made EVE bigger? By reducing timers, you could have a similar effect--by allowing less time for reinforcements to arrive, you localize sov. In other words, too much invulnerability time and warning begins to negate what you tried to make happen with jump fatigue.
Why would you limit jump drive use but still allow days for reinforcements to form? The only explanation I can think of is wanting gate travel to happen, as if that is a strong indicator of health and activity. But really, all you accomplish is more gate use and not much else. (was this a result of game balancing based on statistics? I think maybe yes, too much importance was placed on gate travel, and it became the only thing you achieved?)
If you want sov ownership to reflect occupancy, don't give organizations 2 days to get their ships moved?
Help, I can't download EVE
|
Nolak Ataru
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
821
|
Posted - 2015.04.12 13:26:44 -
[324] - Quote
Sarah Eginald wrote:I hope these changes might make it easier for smaller groups to take sov. Not because of superior force but lack of interest in the large powers to keep outer non crucial systems. An example would be say a non useful that does not have any high value moons. A small alliance can take the system. The larger alliance may keep them neutral but not take the system back because it gives them targets to kill. The smaller alliance would have a foothold in null sec. Also larger alliances can use the small alliances as buffer against invasion from another large group. Most alliances that may want to take sov would be no match for the mega alliances and coalitions like the CFC or any other mega alliance.
The problem you run into is, "what's a non-crucial system"? With R64 and JBs involved, every system has the potential to be extremely useful. Every system of Sov we own is it's own buffer, and we already have some "meatshields", so to speak. GSF wont let people take "non-crucial" systems because they can turn into alliances. |
Iroquoiss Pliskin
Hedion University Amarr Empire
239
|
Posted - 2015.04.12 13:40:28 -
[325] - Quote
Rain6637 wrote: Military control of the grid is mentioned as a key aspect of Entosis, but it's already a component of Sov and ownership warfare. It's not a revolutionary thing that Entosis will enable.
It rather is.
You discount the other new mechanics, which will require accomplishing simultaneous objectives over, say, a constellation.
Spread out, escalate in one place, detract from an another, and possibly lose everything in the end.
Rain6637 wrote: The potential for griefing is going to be a lot higher with Entosis. At least with the renter business model, there is a commitment to defend systems by a type of allied force, however weak. I mean, station services harassment and extortion is about to become a legitimate profession.
Tell me more.
Been there, done that.
// Turret-Equivalent of the Rapid ML Concept
//
Cruisers Online - [Damage done in PvP by Shiptype]
|
Rain6637
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
31009
|
Posted - 2015.04.12 14:04:09 -
[326] - Quote
The interesting thing about the constellation mechanic is the new requirement for a constellation coordinator type of player. Or, the gang you see pictured that had just finished reinforcing every structure in a system...
That's all me. Instead of having a high DPS setup using dreads, I can split myself over several systems with an entosis module on each ship, and handle business that way.
Really, it changes very little to spread things out over a wider area, in the name of military control.
Help, I can't download EVE
|
Iroquoiss Pliskin
Hedion University Amarr Empire
241
|
Posted - 2015.04.12 14:17:21 -
[327] - Quote
Rain6637 wrote: That's all me. Instead of having a high DPS setup using dreads, I can split myself over several systems with an entosis module on each ship, and handle business that way.
Fozzie OP Greate Success then.
// Turret-Equivalent of the Rapid ML Concept
//
Cruisers Online - [Damage done in PvP by Shiptype]
|
Rain6637
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
31010
|
Posted - 2015.04.12 14:26:28 -
[328] - Quote
In that podcast interview with the EVE Down Under crew, Fozzie was asked this same question (more or less), of why Entosis. He didn't give a direct answer, and instead asked the question "how is it worse than what we have now?" In my opinion, it's underhanded to throw the question back at the interviewers like that, and put them on the spot to justify Entosis sov when they asked the question first, and Fozzie is the subject matter expert among them.
Truth is I don't expect a direct answer.
Help, I can't download EVE
|
Iroquoiss Pliskin
Hedion University Amarr Empire
241
|
Posted - 2015.04.12 14:43:06 -
[329] - Quote
I still think POS spam & ensuing dynamics was the pinnacle of Eve around the Bob times, which incidentally, is around when player PCU numbers started to peak, following the biggest player expansion ever.
http://eve-offline.net/?server=tranquility
We're currently back to those PCU levels of the year 2008-2009.
Another thing that old system was good at: Making logistics and actual geography of regions, constellations and supply lines matter.
Anyone remember baby Titans being aborted?
Good times.
I hope we can reach & exceed that Era in every way.
// Turret-Equivalent of the Rapid ML Concept
//
Cruisers Online - [Damage done in PvP by Shiptype]
|
Sarah Eginald
Git-R-Done Logistics Git-R-Done Inc
2
|
Posted - 2015.04.12 14:56:17 -
[330] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:Sarah Eginald wrote:I hope these changes might make it easier for smaller groups to take sov. Not because of superior force but lack of interest in the large powers to keep outer non crucial systems. An example would be say a non useful that does not have any high value moons. A small alliance can take the system. The larger alliance may keep them neutral but not take the system back because it gives them targets to kill. The smaller alliance would have a foothold in null sec. Also larger alliances can use the small alliances as buffer against invasion from another large group. Most alliances that may want to take sov would be no match for the mega alliances and coalitions like the CFC or any other mega alliance. The problem you run into is, "what's a non-crucial system"? With R64 and JBs involved, every system has the potential to be extremely useful. Every system of Sov we own is it's own buffer, and we already have some "meatshields", so to speak. GSF wont let people take "non-crucial" systems because they can turn into alliances.
As far as non crucial system I think this will have to be determined by the alliance. Alliance leader that hold sov would maybe have a series of systems they want to keep and ones they don't. I think the whole point of this is so smaller groups can get sov
The only other way to make null sec more accessible to smaller alliances would be to get rid of moon mining period and change the materials to a new type of asteroids that can re spawn to be mined. The only reason large tracks of sov is held is because of moon goo.
Or get make new null sec that has no harvest-able moons in it. |
|
Rain6637
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
31010
|
Posted - 2015.04.12 15:01:48 -
[331] - Quote
I can't be sure, but I think we're in agreement here. Just to make my opinion clearer, I think EHP grinds are good. If I had to pick between EHP and timers, anyway.
The time I spent on Sisi was just me getting a sense of how hard it is to ref a system. In terms of the number of dreads needed to ref the structures in one siege cycle, I found that each structure was:
Poco: 2 dreads Ihub: 8-10 dreads Outpost: 8-10 dreads refining station service: 3-4 dreads
The reason I bring this up is to illuminate exactly how OP an entosis module is. For each objective, that's how many dreads are being replaced by one Entosis module. Counting the run-up cycle, those figures are cut in half.
That is, assuming all it will take is one effective Entosis cycle to reinforce something.
When the Entosis times are released, the number of five-minute Entosis cycles required is the number of times those dreads are being split in terms of DPS. I'm curious to see exactly how much DPS will be replaced per cycle.
Sure, we know how much EHP will be replaced, but Entosis is moving the EHP requirement over to a time requirement... which I disagree with, but whatever. I'll make do.
I'd rather see structure EHP increased 10x, 20x, 50x... whatever, as a buffer for the defenders. Enough EHP to get rid of timers. Basically the opposite of the Entosis direction.
I think SBUs should be the only timer in the process, perhaps 24 hours (and no more), with a huge EHP buffer. After that, there are no timers, only EHP buffers.
Help, I can't download EVE
|
Hafwolf
StarHunt Mordus Angels
7
|
Posted - 2015.04.12 15:16:56 -
[332] - Quote
Rain6637 wrote:I can't be sure, but I think we're in agreement here. Just to make my opinion clearer, I think EHP grinds are good. If I had to pick between EHP and timers, anyway.
The time I spent on Sisi was just me getting a sense of how hard it is to ref a system. In terms of the number of dreads needed to ref the structures in one siege cycle, I found that each structure was:
Poco: 2 dreads Ihub: 8-10 dreads Outpost: 8-10 dreads refining station service: 3-4 dreads
The reason I bring this up is to illuminate exactly how OP an entosis module is. For each objective, that's how many dreads are being replaced by one Entosis module. Counting the run-up cycle, those figures are cut in half.
That is, assuming all it will take is one effective Entosis cycle to reinforce something.
When the Entosis times are released, the number of five-minute Entosis cycles required is the number of times those dreads are being split in terms of DPS. I'm curious to see exactly how much DPS will be replaced per cycle.
Sure, we know how much EHP will be replaced, but Entosis is moving the EHP requirement over to a time requirement... which I disagree with, but whatever. I'll make do.
I'd rather see structure EHP increased 10x, 20x, 50x... whatever, as a buffer for the defenders. Enough EHP to get rid of timers. Basically the opposite of the Entosis direction.
I think SBUs should be the only timer in the process, perhaps 24 hours (and no more), with a huge EHP buffer. After that, there are no timers, only EHP buffers.
Well I sold all of my capitals and because of the sov grind. That is the most boring part of eve. I would rather get something in timer then have a race to fight for complexes and each other in sub caps then sit starring at my dread or carrier on structure over structure. Actually I would rather run missions or mine in high sec then do the sov grind. Capitals are dead except for transport and they should die. Make things smaller faster. The large alliances will still control null sec just make sov mechanics more fun. |
Rain6637
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
31010
|
Posted - 2015.04.12 15:18:33 -
[333] - Quote
I think that's understandable. Maybe it comes down to playstyles, and what you're looking to get out of gameplay.
I'm happy for you if Entosis is to your liking.
I'm still bothered by a flat Entosis minutes requirement, that locks any group of attackers into a minimum length of time. At least with EHP grinds, you can reduce the time spent by bringing more people. The entosis minutes system removes that incentive. So even if you bring 256 max dudes, you're still going to linger around like a group that only brings 10.
Help, I can't download EVE
|
Iroquoiss Pliskin
Hedion University Amarr Empire
241
|
Posted - 2015.04.12 15:43:52 -
[334] - Quote
Why bring 256 dudes for a single system? Leverage the new mechanics and take half a constellation in the time it takes to take to RF a system with the current sov.
Those fat dudes will come in handy, when conflict moves from the periphery and buffer zones, into the most-treasured systems, where control of the grid will be key prior to RF.
As with all structural changes, one can never know in advance. Some successful Entosis zergrush doctrines might develop, but with alpha fleets being readily available - that is unlikely.
// Turret-Equivalent of the Rapid ML Concept
//
Cruisers Online - [Damage done in PvP by Shiptype]
|
Hafwolf
StarHunt Mordus Angels
8
|
Posted - 2015.04.12 15:56:40 -
[335] - Quote
I think the Entosis link yes the boring part is the person running the link. However I think it should take a couple times for Sov structures then have complexes popup in the constellation then have a race to see who can get the most complexes done. So a 4 hour timer starts to claim complexes if no one gets enough complexes or the sov holder get the majority of complexes then they keep there sov. If an invader get the majority of complexes in 2 hour they get the sov. So more people can get it done faster with smaller groups doing more complexes. This will Also create conflict and fights as 2 or more groups race to fight for the complexes. This I think this would be a lot more fun then sitting in a dread hitting f1 every few minutes after your guns reload. This would also give the bonus to the sov holders since they would have ships and manpower available at close range in a fight. The invaders would have to have logistics and fleet replacement and be able to get back in the fight quickly so they would probably not go to far from home to start. |
Rain6637
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
31011
|
Posted - 2015.04.12 16:26:40 -
[336] - Quote
This is assuming fights are worth instigating in the first place. Cherry picking moons and sticking with EHP / timer mechanics of POSes is a more lucrative activity. Tried and true, even.
About alpha fleets. Doesn't it seem odd that Entosis links will incur restrictions similar to siege/triage/bastion? I still don't get that part. You'll still have ships performing siege-like behavior. How can you dislike siege dreads and then say you like the idea of Entosis? Entosis is almost literally sieging in a Revelation without having to deal with ammo reloads.
I thought that part was pretty clear, that Entosis is about to force more siege-like gameplay, except you get to move around on grid. The components of siege are there. 5 minute increments of time, everyone has to wait around, and you too can siege in your subcap, just fit an Entosis link!
?
Help, I can't download EVE
|
Iroquoiss Pliskin
Hedion University Amarr Empire
242
|
Posted - 2015.04.12 17:07:05 -
[337] - Quote
Rain6637 wrote:This is assuming fights are worth instigating in the first place. Cherry picking moons and sticking with EHP / timer mechanics of POSes is a more lucrative activity. Tried and true, even.
About alpha fleets. Doesn't it seem odd that Entosis links will incur restrictions similar to siege/triage/bastion? I still don't get that part. You'll still have ships performing siege-like behavior. How can you dislike siege dreads and then say you like the idea of Entosis?
I despise all capitals alike.
Quote:Entosis is almost literally sieging in a Revelation without having to deal with ammo reloads.
One ship doing that, not twenty.
Quote:I thought that part was pretty clear, that Entosis is about to force more siege-like gameplay, except you get to move around on grid. The components of siege are there. 5 minute increments of time, everyone has to wait around,
Again - one ship.
Sure, they can wait around if they suspect incoming hostiles and/or the system not being secure. In an situation with both parties present in sufficient numbers, it will make for a very dynamic engagement.
Time to dig up that dusty Grid Fu manual... 750 km by 250 by 250 visibility rectangular piece of Art is a Go.
// Turret-Equivalent of the Rapid ML Concept
//
Cruisers Online - [Damage done in PvP by Shiptype]
|
Rain6637
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
31011
|
Posted - 2015.04.12 19:15:50 -
[338] - Quote
I'm not sure I understand the importance of the solo ship point you are trying to make. Can you explain it further?
The premise behind this fitting update to Entosis seems to be disallowing interceptors, but there are still very viable options for attack and defense. To apply Entosis I would pick something fast with boosted lock range. To defend, I would use an Arazu and damp.
You don't have to kill the ship outright. All you have to do is break its lock.
Overall, I don't get why manpower is being disincentivized. But apparently you understand why solo Entosis is a good thing, so maybe you can help me understand?
Help, I can't download EVE
|
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans
2242
|
Posted - 2015.04.12 19:28:14 -
[339] - Quote
man power is only being disincentivizrd in situations where it is unnecessary. The effort to take the system or structure needs to more reflect the defenders participation, rather than simply blabbing as much as possible with as much DPS you can muster, to overtake absentees landlord holdings.
In other words, the amount of resources to take something, is exactly the same if you attack someone's home system versus snatching a backwater buffer system is exactly the same, any fights generated not withstanding |
Iroquoiss Pliskin
Hedion University Amarr Empire
245
|
Posted - 2015.04.12 19:54:13 -
[340] - Quote
Rain6637 wrote: Overall, I don't get why manpower is being disincentivized. But apparently you understand why solo Entosis is a good thing, so maybe you can help me understand?
Read Fozzie's first point on the first page of this most illustrious thread.
CCP Fozzie wrote:As much as possible, the Entosis Link capture progress should reflect which group has effective military control of the grid.
At its core, the Entosis Link mechanic is a way for the server to tell who won (or is winning) a fight in a specific location. This is a surprisingly tough thing for the server to determine. The best way to win a structure or command node with the Entosis Link should be to gain effective control of the grid. ... This means that there will always be an intermediate state where the grid is "contested" and neither side is making significant progress until the fight is resolved.
Server "knowing" who has won/lost a battle is not a literal meaning, rather from a complex systems designer point of view: determining the true control of a system/grid in its truest definition.
Entosis concept isn't even a catalyst, but rather a confirmation that yes - no one is here, system is unoccupied, all clear, fly safe. o77 The only balance question that needs to be asked now is the exact cycle/progress timers and exact counter-measure conditions.
TL;DR Practical frequency of ping-pongs.
If you could force multiply the effect by merely bringing more warm bodies, you'd nullify the whole point of the new sov system. The point being - clean up the clusterfuck and get Eve back into healthy Order.
For without Death, there is no Life; without death there are worse things than death itself.
And so, Life feeds on life; feeds on life; feeds on; life feeds on...
This is necessary.
DEATH TO ALL CAPITALS
// Turret-Equivalent of the Rapid ML Concept
//
Cruisers Online - [Damage done in PvP by Shiptype]
|
|
Rain6637
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
31011
|
Posted - 2015.04.12 20:36:49 -
[341] - Quote
I'm still not satisfied with the bit about determining military control of the grid. Killing the thing is already a good indication of who is winning.
What Entosis does differently is ensuring that one side has fought to the last man, or has left completely. Or has run out of entosis links. This strikes me as very wishful thinking.
I mean no disrespect when I say that I find the attempt amusing. I'm left hoping there's simply a big chunk of future changes that we aren't being told, that would make this revamp worthwhile.
Help, I can't download EVE
|
Iroquoiss Pliskin
Hedion University Amarr Empire
246
|
Posted - 2015.04.12 20:40:50 -
[342] - Quote
Rain6637 wrote:I'm left hoping there's simply a big chunk of future changes that we aren't being told, that would make this revamp worthwhile.
Bingo-presto, but I think the concept at its core will remain the same.
All your buffer, all y---our buffer are belong to us.
// Turret-Equivalent of the Rapid ML Concept
//
Cruisers Online - [Damage done in PvP by Shiptype]
|
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
2029
|
Posted - 2015.04.12 22:23:57 -
[343] - Quote
Rain6637 wrote:This is assuming fights are worth instigating in the first place. Cherry picking moons and sticking with EHP / timer mechanics of POSes is a more lucrative activity. Tried and true, even.
About alpha fleets. Doesn't it seem odd that Entosis links will incur restrictions similar to siege/triage/bastion? I still don't get that part. You'll still have ships performing siege-like behavior. How can you dislike siege dreads and then say you like the idea of Entosis? Entosis is almost literally sieging in a Revelation without having to deal with ammo reloads.
I thought that part was pretty clear, that Entosis is about to force more siege-like gameplay, except you get to move around on grid. The components of siege are there. 5 minute increments of time, everyone has to wait around, and you too can siege in your subcap, just fit an Entosis link!
? Try looking at HIC's, that's actually the behaviour the entosis link best copies, not Siege. |
Rain6637
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
31011
|
Posted - 2015.04.12 23:26:28 -
[344] - Quote
You're right. I guess I got stuck on siege due to the role that Entosis is more or less taking over (from siege).
Help, I can't download EVE
|
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans
2244
|
Posted - 2015.04.12 23:44:35 -
[345] - Quote
Rain6637 wrote:I'm still not satisfied with the bit about determining military control of the grid. Killing the thing is already a good indication of who is winning.
What Entosis does differently is ensuring that one side has fought to the last man, or has left completely. Or has run out of entosis links. This strikes me as very wishful thinking.
I mean no disrespect when I say that I find the attempt amusing. I'm left hoping there's simply a big chunk of future changes that we aren't being told, that would make this revamp worthwhile. The key difference between "having effective military control" and "holding the grid" defines whether or not hostiles are present and engaging. A simple way to explain this would be to ask,"If i bring in something I cannot support with remote assistance, will it be safe?" vs. "I am holding my position however I cannot gauruntee the safety of anything that is independent of my repair ability" Military control is fluid and dynamic. If you can suppress a hostile entity's ability to engage targets, You have control. If the hostiles can engage targets freely, you do not have effective military control.
Rain6637 wrote:Rowells wrote:man power is only being disincentivizrd in situations where it is unnecessary. The effort to take the system or structure needs to more reflect the defenders participation, rather than simply blabbing as much as possible with as much DPS you can muster, to overtake absentees landlord holdings.
In other words, the amount of resources to take something, is exactly the same if you attack someone's home system versus snatching a backwater buffer system is exactly the same, any fights generated not withstanding Doesn't the current system already scale in difficulty based on the defender's participation? What I see is that timers are guaranteed while the option of accelerating the process is being removed completely. I don't understand how this fits in with making sov easier to defend if you live there, and the reduction of power projection through jump fatigue. EHP buffers, rather than timers, would support the idea of scaling based on the fight. If Entosis has to be used, it could be required in conjunction with an EHP buffer. For example, a structure can only be flipped when it is out of EHP and has been Entosised. Doesn't this satisfy the military control requirement? So why is Entosis being used exclusively. Is this not trading an EHP buffer for a time buffer? Feels oversimplified, to put it lightly. The current system does not do it well or barely at all. The difficulty of taking the structure itself (the hostiles fighting is an almost entirely independent variable in both situations, due to factors outside of the engagement) does not change. Whereas, trying to take a system under high use and with long-standing occupancy, is more difficult to take than a system that literally just had a flag planted in it and nothing else, under the new system.
The EHP buffer only offered a system where having greater numbers would be a higher determinant of structure survivability, than actually fighting the enemy. This was why reducing the EHP would not be a viable solution to lowering the entry bar for sov, since it makes it slightly easier for a small group and greatly easier for a much larger established group. This won't remove the advantage of greater numbers entirely, but make the numbers advantage applicable to the fight, rather than the grind.
Lets think of an extreme example: Group A has 100 pilots Group B has 50
Hypothetically we assume group B destroys the enemy fleet or causes them to leave the field indefinitely. Group B has to spend more time trying to take the system even though group A lost or abandoned it.
This system removes numbers as the determining factor for how long you have to sit cycling guns on a target, which is almost irrelevant to the actual combat victory in most cases. |
Rain6637
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
31011
|
Posted - 2015.04.13 00:05:27 -
[346] - Quote
Until I hear some deeper reasoning to justify numbers as being a bad thing, I'm stuck in disagreement. Compared to damage (EHP), things like invulnerability, timers, and a special module will remain, in my mind, nothing more than 'because magic' a la WoW. In the meantime, I'll live without an explanation to satisfy my curiosity, so I suppose it'll just have to be whatever. Magic game mechanics break my immersion quite a bit, but who cares about RP right.
Help, I can't download EVE
|
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans
2245
|
Posted - 2015.04.13 00:37:44 -
[347] - Quote
Rain6637 wrote:Until I hear some deeper reasoning to justify numbers as being a bad thing, I'm stuck in disagreement. numbers are not bad. However the advantage they give needs to be in the fight, not the grind. We have no need to make smaller groups spend more time destroying something that is undefended simply because they don't have as many friends. Numbers will still give you the advantage in a fight and in maintaining sov indices to make it tougher, amongst the other benefits it gives. However the way scaling worked for HP grinds made numbers absolutely ESSENTIAL to do anything in a reasonable time. It all goes back to,"shoudld an abandoned system take just as long to flip as an occupied one?"
Rain6637 wrote:Compared to damage (EHP), things like invulnerability, timers, and a special module will remain, in my mind, nothing more than 'because magic' a la WoW. In the meantime, I'll live without an explanation to satisfy my curiosity, so I suppose it'll just have to be whatever. Magic game mechanics break my immersion quite a bit, but who cares about RP right. I don't find this unique to many mechanics in eve. As much 'scientific' explanation someone will give me, I will never believe turning capacitor energy into nanites into armor on a ship 50km away will ever make sense (in a sense all sov mechanics don't make any real sense either). Guess it just depends on how important the realism is to you. |
Rain6637
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
31011
|
Posted - 2015.04.13 00:45:09 -
[348] - Quote
I don't see why the EHP can't be part of the conflict. It can be called a grind, but if you're uncontested while grinding EHP, then you should consider yourself fortunate.
Oh, and magic capacitor creation through cap chaining... that's hilariously fake and I love abusing making use of it.
Help, I can't download EVE
|
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans
2245
|
Posted - 2015.04.13 01:18:22 -
[349] - Quote
Rain6637 wrote:I don't see why the EHP can't be part of the conflict. It can be called a grind, but if you're uncontested while grinding EHP, then you should consider yourself fortunate. Considering myself fortunate because no one is going to show up for the next few hours while I try to work with dominion sov and hp is not something I would like to do. At that point its almost me just paying for something in man hours. Rather than from actually using my man hours better.
Rain6637 wrote:Oh, and magic capacitor creation through cap chaining... that's hilariously fake and I love abusing making use of it.
At the very least, I think Entosis links should have skills that reduce cycle time. no complaints here |
Rain6637
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
31011
|
Posted - 2015.04.13 01:26:06 -
[350] - Quote
See, that point about man hours. You have to submit to a set number of minutes under Entosis. Unlike right now, like I did on Sisi last night, just bring three or four dreads and get it done in 10 mins. I don't think it's a worthwhile trade off. I also don't see why Fozzie expressed such a strong negative sentiment toward HP objectives. Does he grind structures alone, with just one character?
Help, I can't download EVE
|
|
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans
2245
|
Posted - 2015.04.13 02:14:59 -
[351] - Quote
Rain6637 wrote:See, that point about man hours. You have to submit to a set number of minutes under Entosis. Unlike right now, like I did on Sisi last night, just bring three or four dreads and get it done in 10 mins. I don't think it's a worthwhile trade off. I also don't see why Fozzie expressed such a strong negative sentiment toward HP objectives. Does he grind structures alone, with just one character? disabling a station service with 5 dreads in 10 minutes? ok. grinding through 2 station and ihub timers with much more hp and onlining sbus in system? very different amounts of investment in time.
Which might also lead us to the question,"how mamy dreads should an alliance have before it can take sov reasonably?". Should we start setting minum limits to take sov like that?
Also considering a T2 link can quite possibly RF an unused system in about 12 minutes, without having to drag caps and industrial ships around the system for hours, I find that a very fair trade off. In fact the largest investment in time would be the 120 minutes (or less if friends) minimum needed on the final timer. And using a flat timer instead of HP also benefits a smaller group since no one can just drop hundreds of people and roll through in a matter of minutes for all of their services. A well used system will give the advantage in defense. An underused one will give very little in defense. It equals the requirements of time in similar scenarios and focuses the gameplay on the actions surrounding it. Same thing happened with jump fatigue, everyone's timer is the same based on the same factors.
Rain6637 wrote:If the goal was to negate multiboxing, I remember no such goal
|
Rain6637
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
31011
|
Posted - 2015.04.13 02:26:16 -
[352] - Quote
What's the problem with bringing max dudes, I mean, isn't that what Entosis does... proliferates sov flipping down to just one character? I'm just spitballing and exploring possible motivations here.
Man you can get a lot done with just three or four dreads. It's not that hard. I'm very confident the number of Entosis minutes will be more than 10 (two siege cycles), which is a current threshold that is very easy to stay under.
My point is still the same as it was at the beginning of the last page: Why is so much being changed for the sake of something that is already easy with five to six ships, while keeping the timers which cause most of the clunkiness.
The timers are what allow reinforcements to slowboat across regions in time to defend systems they don't live in.
Doesn't make sense to me.
You could attack several systems owned by an alliance at once, sure, but that's not new. You can already put that kind of pressure on an alliance right now.
I ref'd that station in 2 cycles, btw. I took out some of the services because I still had time left on my siege cycles.
Help, I can't download EVE
|
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
2029
|
Posted - 2015.04.13 02:46:09 -
[353] - Quote
The point is you only have to bring the number of pilots required to beat the defenders, and that caps aren't required for Sov warfare. By removing the HP grind there is no longer a need to have 200 pilots to take an undefended system in a reasonable time. (Your 3-4 dreads for 10 minutes is so so far off the mark for HP grinds for full sov in a single system). Instead you now have your 200 man fleet looking for actual people to shoot, not shooting structures. More people interaction = more real content.
Timers already exist in Sov currently, and NEED to stay to avoid stuff being burnt just because people aren't online 24/7 because EVE is a game, not life. So timers aren't significantly being changed. |
Rain6637
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
31011
|
Posted - 2015.04.13 02:50:34 -
[354] - Quote
If a limited vulnerability window is going to be implemented, timers should synchronize, rather than exit at some random number of hours +/-. I'd agree with the timers and the vulnerability if timers come out at the same time alliance-wide.
Help, I can't download EVE
|
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans
2245
|
Posted - 2015.04.13 03:29:56 -
[355] - Quote
Rain6637 wrote:What's the problem with bringing max dudes, I mean, isn't that what Entosis does... proliferates sov flipping down to just one character? I'm just spitballing and exploring possible motivations here.
Man you can get a lot done with just three or four dreads. It's not that hard. I'm very confident the number of Entosis minutes will be more than 10 (two siege cycles), which is a current threshold that is very easy to stay under.
My point is still the same as it was at the beginning of the last page: Why is so much being changed for the sake of something that is already easy with five to six ships, while keeping the timers which cause most of the clunkiness.
The timers are what allow reinforcements to slowboat across regions in time to defend systems they don't live in.
Doesn't make sense to me.
You could attack several systems owned by an alliance at once, sure, but that's not new. You can already put that kind of pressure on an alliance right now.
I ref'd that station in 2 cycles, btw. I took out some of the services because I still had time left on my siege cycles. Yes, but I'm sure you didnt RF the IHUB or TCU or online the SBUs or wait the potential 2 (?) days for the final timer so you could do it all over again, in that same 10 minutes.
So much is being changed, because it currently requires quite a bit to even begin thinking about sov, much less anything beyond it. The focus needs to sway more into the fight for control, rather than the grind for it.
The timers are fine. If the timer is too short because you never use it, thats ok. If its long enough for you to form a proper defense, then thats the secondary benefit of using that system.
You could attack several systems at once, but lets take a look at the shopping list for that endeavour. 'x' will represent number of targetted systems. (all assuming no defenders present and no sov indices) Dominion:
- 5x dreads
- (0.51 number of gates in system)x SBUs
- x number of haulers for SBUs
- 3 hours for SBU onlining
- 1-3 days per timer for 2 timers (possible 6 days)
- 30 minutes total of grinding time based on your numbers
And now for Entosis sov with the same systems:
- x ships and pilots
- x entosis mods (T1 or T2 dependant on availibility)
- 20 minutes for inital timer on T1 12 on T2
- 120 minutes for final timer spawns
- roughly 24 hours to wait for final timer
while the grind has not been entirely removed (mostly for sake of potential defenders) the initial requirement is much lower, and will simply scale based on the defenders presence and resistance.
and for the last remark, see above post regarding SBUs and such |
Rain6637
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
31012
|
Posted - 2015.04.13 03:36:23 -
[356] - Quote
I missed that figure, 120 minutes of Entosis?
Welp. At least there's still POSes to cherry pick.
(120 minutes... what is that balanced against... a ratting carrier?)
Help, I can't download EVE
|
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans
2245
|
Posted - 2015.04.13 03:42:53 -
[357] - Quote
Rain6637 wrote:If a limited vulnerability window is going to be implemented, timers should synchronize, rather than exit at some random number of hours +/-. I'd agree with the timers and the vulnerability if timers come out at the same time alliance-wide.
Explain to me how I'm off. I showed up as SBUs onlined, reinforced the Ihub and then the outpost, took 20 mins. Am I missing something?
If vulnerability will only be for a period of 4 hours per day, why can't I run straight through EHP for those four hours. Is it too much to expect players to be vigilant for 4 hours? Is 1 hour better?
I just logged in to that system to check the timers, I didn't write anything down... I still can't do anything for 1 or 2 days, depending on the structure.
I don't see why people will bother. Have you checked rental prices? Most of them are one or two billion ISK per month. If that's really what systems are worth, really, why do people bother, outside of attrition.
I have my disagreements with the currently proposed RF timers as well. mostly the 'alliance wide' thing.
Those SBUs didnt just spring up pre-onlined out of nowhere. They are an essential step to taking anything sov related and require 3 hours to online each.
The 4 hours is for the defender as I understand it. And I don't understand what you mean by running through the EHP for 4 hours.
yep, timers for sov structures can be timed for a max of 3 days I believe, making it 6 for the two timers.
I have no idea why people rent, never done it myself. I imagine its either for the ISK, the glory, or the babes. And ironically, an active renter empire will actually be harder to take than one might think. go figure. |
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans
2245
|
Posted - 2015.04.13 03:45:16 -
[358] - Quote
Rain6637 wrote:I missed that figure, 120 minutes of Entosis?
Welp. At least there's still POSes to cherry pick.
(120 minutes... what is that balanced against... a ratting carrier?) 10 capture points with a T2 mod (warm up time 2 minutes)
10 points x 12 minute capture
god forbid any poor man is forced to try and claim lots of sov sov with a carrier fleet, or is that a good thing? who knows. |
Rain6637
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
31012
|
Posted - 2015.04.13 03:56:37 -
[359] - Quote
2 hours isn't so bad, I guess. If it's an unoccupied system, it just means splitting up and hitting several things at once.
The part about the 4 hour window: If structures are only vulnerable for 4 hours, isn't that enough warning for the occupants to be vigilant for that window? Why do you need timers on top of a limited vulnerability window.
If you know you're only going to be attacked in a 4 hour window, why not allow EHP to be grinded down continuously within that time period. What I'm hearing is that on top of 20 hours of safety per day, structure owners also get a day or two of prep time to defend their stuff.
It doesn't strike me as enough consequence for not being present in a system.
Help, I can't download EVE
|
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans
2245
|
Posted - 2015.04.13 04:13:40 -
[360] - Quote
Rain6637 wrote: The part about the 4 hour window: If structures are only vulnerable for 4 hours, isn't that enough warning for the occupants to be vigilant for that window? Why do you need timers on top of a limited vulnerability window.
If you know you're only going to be attacked in a 4 hour window, why not allow EHP to be grinded down continuously within that time period. What I'm hearing is that on top of 20 hours of safety per day, structure owners also get a day or two of prep time to defend their stuff.
It doesn't strike me as enough consequence for not being present in a system.
I believe the timer is in counter to the option of not having a timer. It gives time for alliance members to arrive or to grab ships from a staging system, etc. If you still manage to lose the system due to neglect, its even more reason you need to fight later on.
The 4 hour window is to ensure the defending alliance has a reasonable chance to organize a defense in a TZ they are actually using, rather than playing TZ games. it has its advantages and disadvantages over the old system.
The day (20-28 hours) is much less than the possible 6 for current mechanics. And since the barrier for entry was lowered substantially, the defenders are granted the ability to roughly decide the time of engagements, whereas the offender can decide the place. But, again, I dont necessarily like the way the 4 hour window works in its suggested form. Has potential to exclude parts of the alliance from assisting in defense, makes you pick favorites really. |
|
Rain6637
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
31012
|
Posted - 2015.04.13 04:23:19 -
[361] - Quote
The other problem with the randomness of the timers (rather than always coming out at the same time) is the possibility of moving the same force from one system to another, if their timers are far enough apart. Between laziness and greed, if you allow one force to cover multiple systems in the same day, you'll end up with renters.
Renter space is a symptom of defense being too easy across multiple systems.
imo.
Help, I can't download EVE
|
Cade Windstalker
Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra
356
|
Posted - 2015.04.13 05:28:49 -
[362] - Quote
Rain6637 wrote:Until I hear some deeper reasoning to justify numbers as being a bad thing, I'm stuck in disagreement. Compared to damage (EHP), things like invulnerability, timers, and a special module will remain, in my mind, nothing more than 'because magic' a la WoW. In the meantime, I'll live without an explanation to satisfy my curiosity, so I suppose it'll just have to be whatever. Magic game mechanics break my immersion quite a bit, but who cares about RP right.
Sometimes gameplay has to trump story. If you need an explanation then invent one. Like whatever system it is that creates the invulnerability field needs to vent waste products and this creates a vulnerability period.
The alternative, removing these timers for the sake of people finding them unsatisfactory for Lore reasons, creates an unplayable bad gameplay situation so that's not an option.
Rain6637 wrote:I don't see why the EHP can't be part of the conflict. It can be called a grind, but if you're uncontested while grinding EHP, then you should consider yourself fortunate.
Oh, and magic capacitor creation through cap chaining... that's hilariously fake and I love abusing making use of it.
At the very least, I think Entosis links should have skills that reduce cycle time.
There's already a simple explanation for cap chain. Your ships capacitor is one power source, its power-grid is another. The Capacitor Transfer module makes use of some combination of ship's powergrid and chemical reactions to take the energy jolt from your ship's capacitor and transfer energy to another ship. This may be in some way related to Cap Recharger module and how it improves cap recharge rate.
The problem I see with having skills that reduce Entosis Cycle time is that Sov has accessibility problems currently. It's basically "bring supers/Caps or go home" and it's universally dominated by alliances with lots of high skill players. Since there is a clear advantage to having reduced cycle time the module needs to be balanced around the lowest possible cycle time. This means that if you don't have that you're at a distinct disadvantage starting from the design intent and working down from there.
Rain6637 wrote:See, that point about man hours. You have to submit to a set number of minutes under Entosis. Unlike right now, like I did on Sisi last night, just bring three or four dreads and get it done in 10 mins. I don't think it's a worthwhile trade off. I also don't see why Fozzie expressed such a strong negative sentiment toward HP objectives. Does he grind structures alone, with just one character?
If the goal was to negate multiboxing, which his other comment about wanting to remove fleet warp makes me wonder if he has a thing against multiboxing... it's a failure. Allowing me to flip something with just one character only means I can flip several things at once.
The current problem with Structure Grinds is that they're boring and basically mean "throw people at it" becomes a mechanic. If enemies aren't going to contest you still need to drag a huge cap fleet around to every structure you want to knock over, which also makes them very hard to defend since there's a point where you have enough people to just have everyone press F1 (or I guess F2 for Titans?) on the structure and it either goes boom or enters its next timer.
The Entosis mechanic means you can send a small squad or series of squads around to every timer and get them all done at once, and you can't just throw a massive fleet at a timer and clear it out in one Siege Cycle. Worst case scenario is you getting a fight out of it as both sides escalate their harassment and response.
Rain6637 wrote:I missed that figure, 120 minutes of Entosis?
Welp. At least there's still POSes to cherry pick.
(120 minutes... what is that balanced against... a ratting carrier?)
This figure is incorrect, at worst it's 40 minutes to flip a Node, and you need 10 nodes. Since 5 spawn at a time you're looking at a best-worst-case of 80 minutes uncontested, but that's for fully occupied Sov. Also Entosis is taking over all structure shooting mechanics, though the details outside of Sov are a bit fuzzy. |
Rain6637
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
31014
|
Posted - 2015.04.13 05:37:47 -
[363] - Quote
I can't say I disagree with anything you've said, so for the sake of forum PVP I shall feign righteous indignation and [insert logical fallacy insult here].
ooooh iiiii get it now. You -=want=- it to take 2 hours no matter what. You said "**** HP based objectives" because they're too easy... ??? Fozzie-kun?
holy crap, and here I was thinking it couldn't suck any harder. So is the 4 hour figure reached by adding offensive and defensive 2 hour max entosis periods back to back?
Foz. Fozz meister. Fozzski. Braux. Disregard everything I said.
Help, I can't download EVE
|
Iroquoiss Pliskin
Hedion University Amarr Empire
250
|
Posted - 2015.04.13 10:07:52 -
[364] - Quote
Rain6637 wrote: The timers are what allow reinforcements to slowboat across regions in time to defend systems they don't live in.
Not when you have 25 different systems coming out of RF simultaneously/+-1-2 hours apart.
I liek to see the world burn. ~(-ÿGû+-ÿ~)
// Turret-Equivalent of the Rapid ML Concept
//
Cruisers Online - [Damage done in PvP by Shiptype]
|
Iroquoiss Pliskin
Hedion University Amarr Empire
250
|
Posted - 2015.04.13 10:12:49 -
[365] - Quote
Rain6637 wrote: ooooh iiiii get it now. You -=want=- it to take 2 hours no matter what. You said "**** HP based objectives" because they're too easy... ??? Fozzie-kun?
One more time...
One more time We're gonna celebrate Oh yeah, all right Don't stop the dancing
One more time We're gonna celebrate Oh yeah, all right Don't stop the dancing
One more time We're gonna celebrate Oh yeah, all right Don't stop the dancing
One more time We're gonna celebrate Oh yeah...
One more time - take the same 4-5 dudes and put them into Ishtars/whatever - reinforce 2-3 empty systems in the same time it takes to RF a single one with the current mechanics.
// Turret-Equivalent of the Rapid ML Concept
//
Cruisers Online - [Damage done in PvP by Shiptype]
|
Soleil Fournier
Ultimatum. The Bastion
35
|
Posted - 2015.04.13 11:14:34 -
[366] - Quote
Well here's hoping the devs still monitor this thread lol
I think ship choice should matter in the sov system. Fozzie doesn't want to limit entosis links to a particular shiptype, so lets roll with that but make a change that would still add benefit to choosing different fleet types so it's not just a race to the bottom cheapest least risky option (or base your choices on the FOTM like ishtars or T3 cruisers have been).
Add in a penalty to all entosis modules that mirrors the capital link. But add in a bonus that cancels out this penalty based on the structure size that the entosis link is being used on.
So:
Frigates/destroyers would have no penalty against small structures, but a penalty against M,L, and XL structures. Capitals would have no penalty vs XL structures, but a penalty vs S,M,L structures. Same for the remaining shiptypes.
This means that I can still assault an XL structure with a frigate, it would just take longer to do so.
I think this would bring a happy medium to allowing all shiptypes to be viable against all structures, but you'd get a benefit for choosing the right sized ship type against that structure which will add variation to soverignty. |
Raphael Celestine
Celestine Inc.
67
|
Posted - 2015.04.13 12:42:57 -
[367] - Quote
Soleil Fournier wrote:I think ship choice should matter in the sov system. Fozzie doesn't want to limit entosis links to a particular shiptype, so lets roll with that but make a change that would still add benefit to choosing different fleet types so it's not just a race to the bottom cheapest least risky option (or base your choices on the FOTM like ishtars or T3 cruisers have been). The goal for ship choice in Fozzie-sov is that you pick a composition to counter the enemy fleet, not the structure.
That means that there shouldn't need to be any special features on the structures to make some harder to take, or encourage bringing something other than T1 frigs, or anything else along those lines. The defenders will do that naturally, by bringing a counter fit and slaughtering you the moment you get too predictable.
(And if there are no defenders you get a cakewalk no matter what you bring... which is perfectly appropriate.) |
Jenshae Chiroptera
1294
|
Posted - 2015.04.13 14:36:32 -
[368] - Quote
Unless something changes an entire region can be flipped in 2 day and 40 minutes on each day.
So far Fozzie SOV is short sighted in what happens in one battle. It also doesn't account for whole regions having timers. It doesn't account for people being blocked out of systems and station camped.
Fozzie SOV will be too annoying to bother defending.
CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids
.
High Sec needs a stepping stone to other areas of space, where they can grow
Fozzie is treating a symptom.
|
Hafwolf
StarHunt Mordus Angels
8
|
Posted - 2015.04.13 14:48:02 -
[369] - Quote
The complex system in the consolation also makes an opertunity for the defenders at gate camps traping the invaders as the move out to get the complexes. I think it should take days to flip a system but it should be by fleet control of the constellation instead of who can do the most dps. Right now an invader puts down a sbu then reinforces the I hub then a timer starts. I don't see the difference if a fleet can control an entasis Link and capture complexes in the other systems of the constellation. I don't think these complexes should be just static if you can stay here for 30 minutes you win. They could be some type oh hack site that the fleet has to defend the hacker from the defending fleet and npc as well. maybe have the npc be like a vanguard incursion site. |
Hafwolf
StarHunt Mordus Angels
8
|
Posted - 2015.04.13 15:09:55 -
[370] - Quote
I think sov should be temporary and null sec alliances should be more nomadic. Getting stronger and moving farther out with less dependence on high sec. Most of sov null is empty except for the occasional jump freighter dropping off fuel and picking up moon goods. Moon materials should move Arround and not be static. I hope that ccp sov changes will work to Thant end. No matter what you do or how the sov works the large alliance will stay static in there regions and not move until you change the profit motive. |
|
Iroquoiss Pliskin
Hedion University Amarr Empire
255
|
Posted - 2015.04.13 19:22:44 -
[371] - Quote
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: Fozzie SOV will be too annoying to bother defending.
That one time when absolutely no one lived in Catch, because it was too annoying to bother defending. Waay before -AAA- times.
Good tymes.
// Turret-Equivalent of the Rapid ML Concept
//
Cruisers Online - [Damage done in PvP by Shiptype]
|
Alexis Nightwish
147
|
Posted - 2015.04.13 20:07:26 -
[372] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:
The Entosis Link itself should have the minimum possible effect on what ships and tactics players can choose.
Two versions:
T1 with a base 5 minute cycle time and 25km range, costing ~20m isk T2 with a base 2 minute cycle time and a 250km range, costing ~80m isk T1 Entosis Link: [list] Requires Infomorph Psychology 1 +250,000 mass when online 5 Minute Cycle Time, 25km range 10 PWG, 1 CPU 50 Capacitor per cycle (0.1666 cap/s) Consumes 1 Stront per cycle
T2 Entosis Link: Requires Infomorph Psychology 4 +1,000,000 mass when online 2 Minute Cycle Time, 250km range 100 PWG, 10 CPU 500 Capacitor per cycle (4.166 cap/s) Consumes 1 Stront per cycle
The stront use is a great idea, but since it uses so little it's just an annoyance and doesn't require any logistical thought or strategy. Even an interceptor's tiny cargo capacity can hold enough stront for thirty cycles.
Given the proposed stats and fitting requirements I see the T1 version only used on cruisers and up, and the T2 only BC and up due to the amount of PG required. Such a limitation does not have "the minimum possible effect on what ships and tactics players can choose."
Have you considered creating three sizes of Elinks with T1 and T2 variants of each?
For example: Small T1 Entosis Link: Requires Infomorph Psychology 1 +250,000 mass when online 5 Minute Cycle Time, 10km range 1 PWG, 1 CPU 50 Capacitor per cycle Consumes 2 Stront per cycle Small T2 Entosis Link: Requires Infomorph Psychology 3 +250,000 mass when online 2 Minute Cycle Time, 15km range 5 PWG, 2 CPU 50 Capacitor per cycle Consumes 2 Stront per cycle Medium T1 Entosis Link: Requires Infomorph Psychology 2 +2,500,000 mass when online 5 Minute Cycle Time, 30km range 10 PWG, 5 CPU 200 Capacitor per cycle Consumes 5 Stront per cycle Medium T2 Entosis Link: Requires Infomorph Psychology 4 +2,500,000 mass when online 2 Minute Cycle Time, 50km range 15 PWG, 10 CPU 200 Capacitor per cycle Consumes 5 Stront per cycle Large T1 Entosis Link: Requires Infomorph Psychology 3 +10,000,000 mass when online 5 Minute Cycle Time, 100km range 100 PWG, 10 CPU 500 Capacitor per cycle Consumes 10 Stront per cycle Large T2 Entosis Link: Requires Infomorph Psychology 5 +10,000,000 mass when online 2 Minute Cycle Time, 250km range 150 PWG, 15 CPU 500 Capacitor per cycle Consumes 10 Stront per cycle
CCP only approaches a problem in one of two ways: nudge or cludge
EVE Online's "I win!" Button
|
Iroquoiss Pliskin
Hedion University Amarr Empire
255
|
Posted - 2015.04.13 20:25:27 -
[373] - Quote
Cyno Reapers is truth. Entosis Velator will succeed. (a+ç -á-¦ -ƒ+ä-£ -í-¦)a+ç
Quote:Given the proposed stats and fitting requirements I see the T1 version only used on cruisers and up, and the T2 only BC and up due to the amount of PG required. Such a limitation does not have "the minimum possible effect on what ships and tactics players can choose."
A hundred PG is nothing on a t1 cruiser, which probably are going to be yolo bricktanked.
Anyone know whether Entosis cycle can be interrupted prematurely via loss of lock? Or does it keep on finishing its cycle, preventing all remote repairs until it's over?
Depending, you could damp your own yolo kruiser, rep him up, regroup and repeat, since Entosis progress is saved AFAIK?
TooGoodToBeTrue.
// Turret-Equivalent of the Rapid ML Concept
//
Cruisers Online - [Damage done in PvP by Shiptype]
|
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans
2250
|
Posted - 2015.04.13 20:29:35 -
[374] - Quote
Alexis Nightwish wrote:Given the proposed stats and fitting requirements I see the T1 version only used on cruisers and up, and the T2 only BC and up due to the amount of PG required. Such a limitation does not have "the minimum possible effect on what ships and tactics players can choose." How do you think only cruisers will only use T1 version? |
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans
2250
|
Posted - 2015.04.13 20:31:26 -
[375] - Quote
Iroquoiss Pliskin wrote:Cyno Reapers is truth. Entosis Velator will succeed. (a+ç -á-¦ -ƒ+ä-£ -í-¦)a+ç Quote:Given the proposed stats and fitting requirements I see the T1 version only used on cruisers and up, and the T2 only BC and up due to the amount of PG required. Such a limitation does not have "the minimum possible effect on what ships and tactics players can choose." A hundred PG is nothing on a t1 cruiser, which probably are going to be yolo bricktanked. Anyone know whether Entosis cycle can be interrupted prematurely via loss of lock? Or does it keep on finishing its cycle, preventing all remote repairs until it's over? Depending, you could damp your own yolo kruiser, rep him up, regroup and repeat, since Entosis progress is saved AFAIK? TooGoodToBeTrue. cycle will continue to finish, regardless of anything short of ship destruction. no way to get out of it early. |
Dersen Lowery
Drinking in Station
1530
|
Posted - 2015.04.13 20:47:46 -
[376] - Quote
Rain6637 wrote:At the very least, I think Entosis links should have skills that reduce cycle time.
Cycle time is irrelevant to capture time. All those skills would do is increase the capacitor and fuel cost of running the link.
Proud founder and member of the Belligerent Desirables.
I voted in CSM X!
|
Iroquoiss Pliskin
Hedion University Amarr Empire
257
|
Posted - 2015.04.13 21:06:40 -
[377] - Quote
Rowells wrote:Iroquoiss Pliskin wrote:Cyno Reapers is truth. Entosis Velator will succeed. (a+ç -á-¦ -ƒ+ä-£ -í-¦)a+ç Quote:Given the proposed stats and fitting requirements I see the T1 version only used on cruisers and up, and the T2 only BC and up due to the amount of PG required. Such a limitation does not have "the minimum possible effect on what ships and tactics players can choose." A hundred PG is nothing on a t1 cruiser, which probably are going to be yolo bricktanked. Anyone know whether Entosis cycle can be interrupted prematurely via loss of lock? Or does it keep on finishing its cycle, preventing all remote repairs until it's over? Depending, you could damp your own yolo kruiser, rep him up, regroup and repeat, since Entosis progress is saved AFAIK? TooGoodToBeTrue. cycle will continue to finish, regardless of anything short of ship destruction. no way to get out of it early.
How about ejecting and re-boarding the spaceship vessel in question?
lel
// Turret-Equivalent of the Rapid ML Concept
//
Cruisers Online - [Damage done in PvP by Shiptype]
|
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans
2251
|
Posted - 2015.04.13 21:08:03 -
[378] - Quote
Iroquoiss Pliskin wrote:Rowells wrote:Iroquoiss Pliskin wrote:Cyno Reapers is truth. Entosis Velator will succeed. (a+ç -á-¦ -ƒ+ä-£ -í-¦)a+ç Quote:Given the proposed stats and fitting requirements I see the T1 version only used on cruisers and up, and the T2 only BC and up due to the amount of PG required. Such a limitation does not have "the minimum possible effect on what ships and tactics players can choose." A hundred PG is nothing on a t1 cruiser, which probably are going to be yolo bricktanked. Anyone know whether Entosis cycle can be interrupted prematurely via loss of lock? Or does it keep on finishing its cycle, preventing all remote repairs until it's over? Depending, you could damp your own yolo kruiser, rep him up, regroup and repeat, since Entosis progress is saved AFAIK? TooGoodToBeTrue. cycle will continue to finish, regardless of anything short of ship destruction. no way to get out of it early. How about ejecting and re-boarding the spaceship vessel in question? lel dont think you can eject while its running. I don't remember a specific response to it, but the intention is it is a locked state of vulnerability. |
Rain6637
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
31016
|
Posted - 2015.04.13 21:49:12 -
[379] - Quote
Dersen Lowery wrote:Rain6637 wrote:At the very least, I think Entosis links should have skills that reduce cycle time. Cycle time is irrelevant to capture time. All those skills would do is increase the capacitor and fuel cost of running the link. I was toying with that idea, yeah, that in exchange for more frequent opportunities to come out of Entosis and catch reps, it would drain resources faster by virtue of cycling faster.
And left that way? Unlike the recent-ish change to MWD to reduce cap use.
I dunno. Just putting words out there. I like the sound of my keyboard.
Help, I can't download EVE
|
Cade Windstalker
Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra
359
|
Posted - 2015.04.13 22:00:33 -
[380] - Quote
Soleil Fournier wrote:Well here's hoping the devs still monitor this thread lol
I think ship choice should matter in the sov system. Fozzie doesn't want to limit entosis links to a particular shiptype, so lets roll with that but make a change that would still add benefit to choosing different fleet types so it's not just a race to the bottom cheapest least risky option (or base your choices on the FOTM like ishtars or T3 cruisers have been).
Add in a penalty to all entosis modules that mirrors the capital link. But add in a bonus that cancels out this penalty based on the structure size that the entosis link is being used on.
So:
Frigates/destroyers would have no penalty against small structures, but a penalty against M,L, and XL structures. Capitals would have no penalty vs XL structures, but a penalty vs S,M,L structures. Same for the remaining shiptypes.
This means that I can still assault an XL structure with a frigate, it would just take longer to do so.
I think this would bring a happy medium to allowing all shiptypes to be viable against all structures, but you'd get a benefit for choosing the right sized ship type against that structure which will add variation to soverignty and have all ships have value in the system.
Check the structure dev-blog, specifically the images of the progression trees: For example this one
The small and medium structures still run on damage based mechanics, and mediums use the old reinforcement mechanics (probably because their HP pool is fairly reasonable and their cost is low). Only Large and Extra-Large sizes use the new Entosis mechanics.
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:Unless something changes an entire region can be flipped in 2 day and 40 minutes on each day.
So far Fozzie SOV is short sighted in what happens in one battle. It also doesn't account for whole regions having timers. It doesn't account for people being blocked out of systems and station camped.
Fozzie SOV will be too annoying to bother defending.
If you let an entire region be reinforced then how is that different from right now? You have a lot of timers to deal with, so you'd better go deal with them. If you can't, then you lose. If someone camps you out of the region you need to defend, you also lose. Those are valid tactics so I'm not sure what the problem here is.
Also I'm not seeing any reasoning behind this new system being more annoying than "here's a structure with about a billion EHP, kill it". Unless your goal is a sov system that lets you catch up on your Netflix queue...
Hafwolf wrote:I think sov should be temporary and null sec alliances should be more nomadic. Getting stronger and moving farther out with less dependence on high sec. Most of sov null is empty except for the occasional jump freighter dropping off fuel and picking up moon goods. Moon materials should move Arround and not be static. I hope that ccp sov changes will work to Thant end. No matter what you do or how the sov works the large alliance will stay static in there regions and not move until you change the profit motive.
This seems massively unrealistic. Sov is populated because players can create a modicum of security to offset the risks. The story of Sov in Eve is one of players building something up and other players coming to try and tear it down. What you're talking about is like someone saying "well, it was hard to establish this colony in these harsh lands, but the crops are coming in nicely! Time to throw it all away and move on again!"
Also there are areas of Null that are less dependant on High Sec, but they're generally considered the worse places to live since having a high-sec life-line is very valuable.
Iroquoiss Pliskin wrote:Anyone know whether Entosis cycle can be interrupted prematurely via loss of lock? Or does it keep on finishing its cycle, preventing all remote repairs until it's over?
Depending, you could damp your own yolo kruiser, rep him up, regroup and repeat, since Entosis progress is saved AFAIK?
TooGoodToBeTrue.
You may want to pay a bit more attention instead of trolling everyone. This was answered in the last thread in a dev post. If you lose lock your progress stops and you need to run a new warm-up cycle, but the module does't stop cycling and you still have all of the penalties it gives, meaning no remote assistance and no warping out.
Rain6637 wrote:I was toying with that idea, yeah, that in exchange for more frequent opportunities to come out of Entosis and catch reps, it would drain resources faster by virtue of cycling faster.
Keep in mind that you need a new warm-up cycle every time you shut off your link or otherwise lose connection. |
|
Hafwolf
StarHunt Mordus Angels
8
|
Posted - 2015.04.13 22:38:15 -
[381] - Quote
I think it more like we have used up this area lets move. My thinking is if the moons dry up after while and have to search for new moons. Maybe make them take months to replenish there value so that is more like what would happen you mine some place after a while it is gone and you have to move. After reading the dev blog on structures that sounds like where ccp wants to head. I think the entosis link is where way of helping make it easier to flip systems that are not guarded. The static moons printing isk for null sec alliances is the main thing that is killing null for pilot in my view. One reason I hate sov grind is most of the time its about getting more sov to provide some director with more moons to make them more passive rich. If the moons ran out the alliance would have to move to find better moons. |
Valenthe de Celine
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
190
|
Posted - 2015.04.14 00:09:38 -
[382] - Quote
I didn't see anyone mention this one by page 13 so I figured I would ask it:
How will TiDi affect the timer for running Entosis units? Will filling a system with ships/drones give a defender or aggressor a sudden advantage to get more help on its way to the system under siege by creating a TiDi situation specifically to slow the timers if they get knocked off grid by foes, allowing them more time to regroup? |
Cade Windstalker
Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra
360
|
Posted - 2015.04.14 01:00:29 -
[383] - Quote
Valenthe de Celine wrote:I didn't see anyone mention this one by page 13 so I figured I would ask it:
How will TiDi affect the timer for running Entosis units? Will filling a system with ships/drones give a defender or aggressor a sudden advantage to get more help on its way to the system under siege by creating a TiDi situation specifically to slow the timers if they get knocked off grid by foes, allowing them more time to regroup?
The timer is running on the server so it gets slowed down along with everything else in Eve. Since the Node Capture event is spread across multiple systems it should be harder to force TiDi into occurring for the main capture event. Other than that the effect of TiDi is not significantly different from currently.
Hafwolf wrote:I think it more like we have used up this area lets move. My thinking is if the moons dry up after while and have to search for new moons. Maybe make them take months to replenish there value so that is more like what would happen you mine some place after a while it is gone and you have to move. After reading the dev blog on structures that sounds like where ccp wants to head. I think the entosis link is where way of helping make it easier to flip systems that are not guarded. The static moons printing isk for null sec alliances is the main thing that is killing null for pilot in my view. One reason I hate sov grind is most of the time its about getting more sov to provide some director with more moons to make them more passive rich. If the moons ran out the alliance would have to move to find better moons.
If Moons ran out the price of T2 ships would shoot through the roof in a month or two, because the location of all of these moons is known to someone somewhere and all of them are being exploited. This wouldn't create incentive to move, it would make moon mining impractical.
Also these days the main source of ISK for the major coalitions is renting space, not moon goo, so the point is moot. |
Rain6637
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
31016
|
Posted - 2015.04.14 01:33:02 -
[384] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote:Rain6637 wrote:I was toying with that idea, yeah, that in exchange for more frequent opportunities to come out of Entosis and catch reps, it would drain resources faster by virtue of cycling faster. Keep in mind that you need a new warm-up cycle every time you shut off your link or otherwise lose connection. yep
Help, I can't download EVE
|
Jenshae Chiroptera
1304
|
Posted - 2015.04.14 12:24:29 -
[385] - Quote
Rowells wrote:Alexis Nightwish wrote:Given the proposed stats and fitting requirements I see the T1 version only used on cruisers and up, and the T2 only BC and up due to the amount of PG required. Such a limitation does not have "the minimum possible effect on what ships and tactics players can choose." How do you think only cruisers will only use T1 version? cycle will continue to finish, regardless of anything short of ship destruction. no way to get out of it early Doesn't matter. Empty pods, cheap ships, NPC base and swarm. Log off all over their region during their off peak time then annoy them with your alts when it suits you.
CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids
.
High Sec needs a stepping stone to other areas of space, where they can grow
Fozzie is treating a symptom.
|
Ncc 1709
Fusion Enterprises Ltd Shadow of xXDEATHXx
170
|
Posted - 2015.04.14 12:27:06 -
[386] - Quote
Strontium usage is too low. Needs a 10x increase minimum |
Cade Windstalker
Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra
371
|
Posted - 2015.04.14 22:03:10 -
[387] - Quote
Ncc 1709 wrote:Strontium usage is too low. Needs a 10x increase minimum
A lot of people have been saying this but no one seems to provide a good rational for it. Every ship with an Entosis Link needs to carry fuel, and it takes a lot of uninterrupted cycles to capture a structure if your defense metrics are good, so why does the fuel use need to be absolutely prohibitive, to the point that it seriously cuts into ammo storage space and makes every ship that's not Amarr an unattractive capture vessel? |
John Sharp
D.O.D. Corporation
0
|
Posted - 2015.04.14 22:43:39 -
[388] - Quote
Like many others I have concerns on how this new idea will work, and what the goal is.
First off, let's be honest, large blocks fighting anything other then another large block will be able to defend and attack at will. These groups can troll SOV for "gudfites" at will, and in reality the smaller alliances will not be able to stop them. This part will not change. Instead of rental empires there will be extortion and "protection" payments that are non-guarantees to not attack your structures. CFC is pulling back to defensible size, and other forces are going to become nomadic.
Entire constellations will be reinforced creating lots of events. While this has the potential to create large amounts of content, it also has the potential to create stalemates with no winner until someone just gives up. We will be getting more ship destruction, as entosis ships will die in droves. Blobbing will still work, as 100 pilots in high EHP ships with entosis links and a supporting fleet should control most grids. Any attempt to use your own entosis against them will result in destruction, and they will have too many ships to burn thru. With that said, I feel a bit sorry for all the entosis pilots that just continually get killed while linked to a structure. At least as tackle you get on KMs and have a bit more options. But enough of that...
Somethings to think about...clearly this is part of a larger plan. The "near" future will have different structures and they will be destructible. Will this be the way these are destroyed as well, and the need for mass DPS eliminated? I'm not sure how this would work out as you could have enormous amounts of events created by mass reinforcements. Things should still blow up when shot by a lot of DPS. We will have to wait and see, but never hurts to start that discussion early.
This new process does require you to be active to defend, but seems a bit favored to the attackers. Especially those not interested in your space or structures, just easy kills. Risk vs Reward is somewhat replaced by Work vs Reward. To hold your space/structure you need to work in EVE for four hours a day, and maybe longer if you cannot return all your "timers" back to zero. Just one second of active link and you must have a member of the defending alliance negate that effect or leave it vulnerable past the window. And the rewards for this work may not be worth the effort of groups that cannot have four hours of active members on every day just to keep that handful of trolls at bay. In no way does this encourage smaller groups to hold SOV or structures. So we end up with a lot of freeports in null...which isn't a bad thing. No one has to pay the bills, and everyone can use it. I-Hubs are only worth the effort to groups that can hold and build up their indexes, which again seems to only be the much larger forces. I'm not sure, but we could end up with a lot of empty space nobody can hold, and everyone running to the established alliances for stability. Not sure that was the plan...or maybe it is.
Why not make SOV mean something. Holding a TCU should still protect YOUR structures in a system. If I can't hold a TCU then I likely can't hold the system, but at least it gives me a chance to have other structures that can't be RF for lulz when I went thru all the effort to put them up. Yes, this will add timers and make things take longer, but why not make it harder for attackers. Defenders took the time and effort to build up their space, should it be that easy to destroy? It would make alliances WANT to have a TCU and claim space, because there is a reward. At the very least it means a force has to be committed to the attack to effect my space in a meaningful way.
While this idea may not resolve anything, and actually add to issues... Why not make the structures require "Maintenance". Entosis links put onto structures to maintain their abilities, maybe just a cycle a day. Again it encourages you living in your space, but not make it to difficult. I'd even suggest that after an attacker has started moving the timer on your structure toward RF, a defender that establishes control for a cycle can make it "regenerate" if not attacked again. Base this on the Index penalty/bonus. That lone troll that runs around every day to move your timers on everything is just annoying. If you miss one it allows your space to get RF'ed outside your window. While I understand the point, it could be a ship that get's in and out on one cycle with a T2 link at range, and does this during the entire four hours(because some people have nothing better to do) and has not interest in your structures. There will be a lot of people paid just to do this, in hopes of being able to RF later.
All in All I can see the amount of content this can create. Not all of it good for everyone. It makes the larger forces more vulnerable to attacks from everyone. And this system is designed that way, it's everyone against you. But as with so many changes to effect the large blocks, it can make life harder of the rest of the players. But there is no real balance for that, it's just the way life is. Sadly it makes a new form of greifing possible too. But this too will create content.
While some tactics seem obvious, EVE players have a way of gaming any system. Things have time to change, and we do need change. With the changes to jumps we could have pockets far enough away to exist in relative peace...maybe...for a week.
Sorry for the wall of text.
tl;dr Changes still leave big blocks and don't encourage small alliances to hold space. But change is still needed and this is just one of those steps. |
Cade Windstalker
Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra
371
|
Posted - 2015.04.14 23:32:00 -
[389] - Quote
John Sharp wrote:Doom and gloom and stuff
I think you're making some bad assumptions about how Entosis Links will be used, practically speaking, or that the intent of these changes is to make small entities able to directly take on larger ones. Part of the point is that a larger entity that is spread thinly relative to its population becomes vulnerable. Both because of the power projection changes and because they will have a hard time maintaining occupancy metrics in their systems which are the main bonus the defenders get, along with actually having the various structures and the bonuses they provide.
Really if you look at it, in addition to the timer bias toward the defenders, the defenders have a lot of advantages. The initiative is with the attackers, but the defenders have all of the intrinsic numerical advantages.
John Sharp wrote:And the rewards for this work may not be worth the effort of groups that cannot have four hours of active members on every day just to keep that handful of trolls at bay.
Regarding this specifically. If you don't have enough active members for four hours a day to defend your sov you have no business holding Sov. Either get more members or go find something more casual. Really I hate the "filthy casuals" argument, but in this case if you're that small or inactive of an Alliance you're not large enough to hold your own sov. |
Valenthe de Celine
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
190
|
Posted - 2015.04.15 00:30:15 -
[390] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote:John Sharp wrote:And the rewards for this work may not be worth the effort of groups that cannot have four hours of active members on every day just to keep that handful of trolls at bay. Regarding this specifically. If you don't have enough active members for four hours a day to defend your sov you have no business holding Sov. Either get more members or go find something more casual. Really I hate the "filthy casuals" argument, but in this case if you're that small or inactive of an Alliance you're not large enough to hold your own sov.
That gets into another exclusionary statement, and that is if you're not able to have either a large enough or active enough group, holding SOV may not be for you. This is where other options can be worked instead, like renting in SOV space, or playing in other areas, or simply not trying to hold territory but instead operating with a nomadic or day-tripper mentality for your game play... not everything revolves around Nullsec and that territory, but that is where the largest economic superpowers gain their wealth.
Not everyone plays for the satisfaction of calling a system "home" and holding it against all comers. Find your own game if the burden of defending territory doesn't appeal to you, rather than trying to make SOV easier for everyone to hold. |
|
Jenshae Chiroptera
1323
|
Posted - 2015.04.15 00:42:50 -
[391] - Quote
John Sharp wrote:... This new process does require you to be active to defend, but seems a bit favored to the attackers. Especially those not interested in your space or structures, just easy kills. ... I think it will be worse than that. New era of "Throw away SOV" where: Group A griefs group B until they get too annoyed and move out. Group C move in and get griefed by group B. Group C moves or some subsequent group people realise that no one wants to hold SOV so it becomes empty.
Meanwhile, Group B holds the moons the entire time.
Low Sec 2.0
CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids
.
High Sec needs a stepping stone to other areas of space, where they can grow
Fozzie is treating a symptom.
|
Cade Windstalker
Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra
372
|
Posted - 2015.04.15 00:53:07 -
[392] - Quote
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:John Sharp wrote:... This new process does require you to be active to defend, but seems a bit favored to the attackers. Especially those not interested in your space or structures, just easy kills. ... I think it will be worse than that. New era of "Throw away SOV" where: Group A griefs group B until they get too annoyed and move out. Group C move in and get griefed by group B. Group C moves or some subsequent group people realise that no one wants to hold SOV so it becomes empty. Meanwhile, Group B holds the moons the entire time. Low Sec 2.0
Then what, exactly, is to stop Groups A and C going "this sucks, lets get-em" and blowing up all of Group B's Mining Arrays?
Also if Group B doesn't actually hold any assets (stations, ect) in the area then how are they so effectively harassing with power projection nerfed the way it is? Are they simply that large of a group and if so why don't they simply hold Sov to better defend their assets? |
Jenshae Chiroptera
1341
|
Posted - 2015.04.16 00:06:25 -
[393] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote:Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:John Sharp wrote:... This new process does require you to be active to defend, but seems a bit favored to the attackers. Especially those not interested in your space or structures, just easy kills. ... I think it will be worse than that. New era of "Throw away SOV" where: Group A griefs group B until they get too annoyed and move out. Group C move in and get griefed by group B. Group C moves or some subsequent group people realise that no one wants to hold SOV so it becomes empty. Meanwhile, Group B holds the moons the entire time. Low Sec 2.0 Then what, exactly, is to stop Groups A and C going "this sucks, lets get-em" and blowing up all of Group B's Mining Arrays? Also if Group B doesn't actually hold any assets (stations, ect) in the area then how are they so effectively harassing with power projection nerfed the way it is? Are they simply that large of a group and if so why don't they simply hold Sov to better defend their assets? Deep Null? Rorquals + POSes + ships + Clone Vat Bays
CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids
.
High Sec needs a stepping stone to other areas of space, where they can grow
Fozzie is treating a symptom.
|
Bowbndr
Twisted Metal Inc. Northern Associates.
12
|
Posted - 2015.04.16 05:32:49 -
[394] - Quote
so what your doing is making it so that your large Goon and CFC friends can just cover all of null sec because they keep people online and running this link, While smaller groups will be pushed out of null completely because they don't have the manpower to constantly defend against these links.
I fail to see how this kind of mechanic helps the little guys at all.
think it should be renamed to Fozzy's Goon sov |
Bowbndr
Twisted Metal Inc. Northern Associates.
12
|
Posted - 2015.04.16 05:39:34 -
[395] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote:Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:John Sharp wrote:... This new process does require you to be active to defend, but seems a bit favored to the attackers. Especially those not interested in your space or structures, just easy kills. ... I think it will be worse than that. New era of "Throw away SOV" where: Group A griefs group B until they get too annoyed and move out. Group C move in and get griefed by group B. Group C moves or some subsequent group people realise that no one wants to hold SOV so it becomes empty. Meanwhile, Group B holds the moons the entire time. Low Sec 2.0 Then what, exactly, is to stop Groups A and C going "this sucks, lets get-em" and blowing up all of Group B's Mining Arrays? Also if Group B doesn't actually hold any assets (stations, ect) in the area then how are they so effectively harassing with power projection nerfed the way it is? Are they simply that large of a group and if so why don't they simply hold Sov to better defend their assets?
Have you not looked at the CFC member list lately? it isn't hard to generate membership when CCP keeps changing the game in your favor. |
Bowbndr
Twisted Metal Inc. Northern Associates.
12
|
Posted - 2015.04.16 05:52:35 -
[396] - Quote
[quote=John Sharp This new process does require you to be active to defend, but seems a bit favored to the attackers. Especially those not interested in your space or structures, just easy kills. Risk vs Reward is somewhat replaced by Work vs Reward. To hold your space/structure you need to work in EVE for four hours a day, and maybe longer if you cannot return all your "timers" back to zero. Just one second of active link and you must have a member of the defending alliance negate that effect or leave it vulnerable past the window. And the rewards for this work may not be worth the effort of groups that cannot have four hours of active members on every day just to keep that handful of trolls at bay. In no way does this encourage smaller groups to hold SOV or structures. So we end up with a lot of freeports in null...which isn't a bad thing. No one has to pay the bills, and everyone can use it. I-Hubs are only worth the effort to groups that can hold and build up their indexes, which again seems to only be the much larger forces. I'm not sure, but we could end up with a lot of empty space nobody can hold, and everyone running to the established alliances for stability. Not sure that was the plan...or maybe it is.
Why not make SOV mean something. Holding a TCU should still protect YOUR structures in a system. If I can't hold a TCU then I likely can't hold the system, but at least it gives me a chance to have other structures that can't be RF for lulz when I went thru all the effort to put them up. Yes, this will add timers and make things take longer, but why not make it harder for attackers. Defenders took the time and effort to build up their space, should it be that easy to destroy? It would make alliances WANT to have a TCU and claim space, because there is a reward. At the very least it means a force has to be committed to the attack to effect my space in a meaningful way.
your assuming that the changes are ment for anything more than Making it easier to drive everyone but Goons from Null. and yes in case you haven't guessed from my posts I do not like goons.
that being said, there is nothing in these changes that will do anything to help with holding sov or make it worth the time and investment for anyone CCP ie Goons don't approve of to try to make a go of it in null.
Fozzy wants to make it easier for the goons to force everyone out of null
|
Iroquoiss Pliskin
Hedion University Amarr Empire
318
|
Posted - 2015.04.16 06:09:09 -
[397] - Quote
Really now, haven't you seen the pre-emptive withdrawal from Fountain? :couldbetrap:
All your dyspro--dyspro are belong to us
CCP, pls.
CCP, listen pls - Remember when we had glorious CAOD? Right? PCUs were breaking record numbers, and soon peaked around 2011 when forums moved and CAOD ~disappeared~.
There's your chance to restore great order in the Force.
// Turret-Equivalent of the Rapid ML Concept
//
Cruisers Online - [Damage done in PvP by Shiptype]
|
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans
2267
|
Posted - 2015.04.16 06:24:17 -
[398] - Quote
Bowbndr wrote:so what your doing is making it so that your large Goon and CFC friends can just cover all of null sec because they keep people online and running this link, While smaller groups will be pushed out of null completely because they don't have the manpower to constantly defend against these links.
I fail to see how this kind of mechanic helps the little guys at all.
think it should be renamed to Fozzy's Goon sov if yure going to claim goons are trying to take all of null in any way, you might want to check news sites more often. I doubt dropping two regions from CFC (or Imperium as it is now) is the next step in their nullsec-domination plan. And with NC. dropping renters this is a prime time for the smaller dudes to swarm in and grab what they can hold.
And have you considered how many people will target the northern space, simply because they hate goons? I can see plenty of un-used space going either unclaimed or being flip-flopped depending on who shows up. |
Cade Windstalker
Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra
384
|
Posted - 2015.04.16 09:32:35 -
[399] - Quote
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:Cade Windstalker wrote:Then what, exactly, is to stop Groups A and C going "this sucks, lets get-em" and blowing up all of Group B's Mining Arrays?
Also if Group B doesn't actually hold any assets (stations, ect) in the area then how are they so effectively harassing with power projection nerfed the way it is? Are they simply that large of a group and if so why don't they simply hold Sov to better defend their assets? Deep Null? Rorquals + POSes + ships + Clone Vat Bays
POSes are going away eventually with the new structures and their replacements will be subject to Entosis mechanics. If they have structures in the area then they're holding assets and those can be attacked and removed by the defenders to end the threat. |
ISD Ezwal
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
4324
|
Posted - 2015.04.16 10:32:38 -
[400] - Quote
I have removed some rule breaking posts. As always I let some edge cases stay. Please people, keep it on topic and above all civil!
The Rules: 3. Ranting is prohibited.
A rant is a post that is often filled with angry and counter productive comments. A free exchange of ideas is essential to building a strong sense of community and is helpful in development of the game and community. Rants are disruptive, and incite flaming and trolling. Please post your thoughts in a concise and clear manner while avoiding going off on rambling tangents.
5. Trolling is prohibited.
Trolling is a defined as a post that is deliberately designed for the purpose of angering and insulting other players in an attempt to incite retaliation or an emotional response. Posts of this nature are disruptive, often abusive and do not contribute to the sense of community that CCP promote.
ISD Ezwal
Vice Admiral
Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)
Interstellar Services Department
|
|
Mayhaw Morgan
State War Academy Caldari State
234
|
Posted - 2015.04.16 11:20:49 -
[401] - Quote
What happens when more than 2 entities are contesting space? Like, what if a Goon wanted to run up/down a timer using an NPC corp alt to protect a Goon control point? |
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
2049
|
Posted - 2015.04.16 11:28:02 -
[402] - Quote
Mayhaw Morgan wrote:What happens when more than 2 entities are contesting space? Like, what if a Goon wanted to run up/down a timer using an NPC corp alt to protect a Goon control point? The NPC Alt counts as an attacker, so runs the attackers timer. That's already been answered in the Dev blog. Only the owning alliance can run a defensive timer/link. Anyone else counts as an attacker, so yes, NPC Corp members can also break someone elses Sov. They still can't actually take it for themselves once it's in freeport mode of course, but they can run the first round of timers and force it into freeport (assuming Outpost). |
Raphael Celestine
Celestine Inc.
72
|
Posted - 2015.04.16 11:33:46 -
[403] - Quote
Anyone not actually in the defender's corp/alliance always counts as an attacker for the purposes of entosis links. You can bring in blues/alts to shoot people, but the links must be run by actual members of the defending group.
In most cases, multiple groups split into two teams: 'defenders' vs 'everybody else'. The big exception is a station in Freeport mode, where there are as many sides as there are entities contesting space - every group running an entosis link runs up their own timer and hurts everyone else's. |
Iroquoiss Pliskin
Hedion University Amarr Empire
324
|
Posted - 2015.04.16 12:26:16 -
[404] - Quote
A Key to the Castle. I like it.
// Turret-Equivalent of the Rapid ML Concept
//
Cruisers Online - [Damage done in PvP by Shiptype]
|
Alexis Nightwish
151
|
Posted - 2015.04.16 19:08:55 -
[405] - Quote
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:John Sharp wrote:... This new process does require you to be active to defend, but seems a bit favored to the attackers. Especially those not interested in your space or structures, just easy kills. ... I think it will be worse than that. New era of "Throw away SOV" where: Group A griefs group B until they get too annoyed and move out. Group C move in and get griefed by group B. Group C moves or some subsequent group people realise that no one wants to hold SOV so it becomes empty. Meanwhile, Group B holds the moons the entire time. Low Sec 2.0 How does Group B hold the moons if they were forced out by Group A?
CCP only approaches a problem in one of two ways: nudge or cludge
EVE Online's "I win!" Button
|
Alexis Nightwish
151
|
Posted - 2015.04.16 19:37:08 -
[406] - Quote
Iroquoiss Pliskin wrote:Cyno Reapers is truth. Entosis Velator will succeed. (a+ç -á-¦ -ƒ+ä-£ -í-¦)a+ç Quote:Given the proposed stats and fitting requirements I see the T1 version only used on cruisers and up, and the T2 only BC and up due to the amount of PG required. Such a limitation does not have "the minimum possible effect on what ships and tactics players can choose." A hundred PG is nothing on a t1 cruiser, which probably are going to be yolo bricktanked. Anyone know whether Entosis cycle can be interrupted prematurely via loss of lock? Or does it keep on finishing its cycle, preventing all remote repairs until it's over? Depending, you could damp your own yolo kruiser, rep him up, regroup and repeat, since Entosis progress is saved AFAIK? TooGoodToBeTrue. Not on a 1400PG Maller sure, but absolutely on a 700PG Arbitrator, which is my whole point: The fitting (along with the nature of an Elink ship needing to keep itself alive w/o help) heavily restricts the ships you would use it on.
I foresee T3Cs being the only ship type that won't get you laughed out of the alliance for putting an Elink on it, which is not having "the minimum possible effect on what ships and tactics players can choose."
CCP only approaches a problem in one of two ways: nudge or cludge
EVE Online's "I win!" Button
|
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans
2284
|
Posted - 2015.04.16 19:42:18 -
[407] - Quote
Alexis Nightwish wrote:Iroquoiss Pliskin wrote:Cyno Reapers is truth. Entosis Velator will succeed. (a+ç -á-¦ -ƒ+ä-£ -í-¦)a+ç Quote:Given the proposed stats and fitting requirements I see the T1 version only used on cruisers and up, and the T2 only BC and up due to the amount of PG required. Such a limitation does not have "the minimum possible effect on what ships and tactics players can choose." A hundred PG is nothing on a t1 cruiser, which probably are going to be yolo bricktanked. Anyone know whether Entosis cycle can be interrupted prematurely via loss of lock? Or does it keep on finishing its cycle, preventing all remote repairs until it's over? Depending, you could damp your own yolo kruiser, rep him up, regroup and repeat, since Entosis progress is saved AFAIK? TooGoodToBeTrue. Not on a 1400PG Maller sure, but absolutely on a 700PG Arbitrator, which is my whole point: The fitting (along with the nature of an Elink ship needing to keep itself alive w/o help) heavily restricts the ships you would use it on. I foresee T3Cs being the only ship type that won't get you laughed out of the alliance for putting an Elink on it, which is not having "the minimum possible effect on what ships and tactics players can choose." "having the minimum possible impact" and "being the optimal choice" are not the same thing. Of course people will throw these things on the tankiest ships they can scrounge, but that doesnt mean they cant throw it on something small and cheap too if they want. |
Jenshae Chiroptera
1355
|
Posted - 2015.04.17 00:41:45 -
[408] - Quote
Alexis Nightwish wrote:How does Group B hold the moons if they were forced out by Group A? Group A don't want the SOV and group B doesn't either at that point. So they stage from NPC stations. Cade Windstalker wrote:Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:Cade Windstalker wrote:Then what, exactly, is to stop Groups A and C going "this sucks, lets get-em" and blowing up all of Group B's Mining Arrays? Also if Group B doesn't actually hold any assets (stations, ect) in the area then how are they so effectively harassing with power projection nerfed the way it is? Are they simply that large of a group and if so why don't they simply hold Sov to better defend their assets? Deep Null? Rorquals + POSes + ships + Clone Vat Bays POSes are going away eventually with the new structures and their replacements will be subject to Entosis mechanics. If they have structures in the area then they're holding assets and those can be attacked and removed by the defenders to end the threat. There will still be an encampment structure so you can set up in enemy territory.
CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids
.
High Sec needs a stepping stone to other areas of space, where they can grow
Fozzie is treating a symptom.
|
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans
2287
|
Posted - 2015.04.17 00:49:34 -
[409] - Quote
So, using the same mechanics, group B is capable of holding moons and living with harassment, except for stations hubs and TCUs? Seems like either the priorities or the capabilities aren't matching here. |
Cade Windstalker
Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra
389
|
Posted - 2015.04.17 01:42:11 -
[410] - Quote
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:Alexis Nightwish wrote:How does Group B hold the moons if they were forced out by Group A? Group A don't want the SOV and group B doesn't either at that point. So they stage from NPC stations. ..snip... There will still be an encampment structure so you can set up in enemy territory.
NPC stations only work to an extent. For example no Super Cap safety and limited power projection range due to the jump changes.
Any sort of player-made structure can be destroyed and if they're defending their staging structures then they're not harassing your Sov (or at least not for very long). Plus all of the non-Sov sized structures don't have the Nodes minigame, making them significantly easier to knock over. |
|
Jenshae Chiroptera
1355
|
Posted - 2015.04.17 02:43:42 -
[411] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote:Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:Alexis Nightwish wrote:How does Group B hold the moons if they were forced out by Group A? Group A don't want the SOV and group B doesn't either at that point. So they stage from NPC stations. ..snip... There will still be an encampment structure so you can set up in enemy territory. NPC stations only work to an extent. For example no Super Cap safety and limited power projection range due to the jump changes.... Having a Low Sec POS with your Supers and a station you can access will be infinitely better than a quick flipped SOV station that is red, locked you out of most of your stuff and has supers logged off in a POS where your enemy can now stage in the same system.
CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids
.
High Sec needs a stepping stone to other areas of space, where they can grow
Fozzie is treating a symptom.
|
Cade Windstalker
Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra
389
|
Posted - 2015.04.17 02:55:25 -
[412] - Quote
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:Having a Low Sec POS with your Supers and a station you can access will be infinitely better than a quick flipped SOV station that is red, locked you out of most of your stuff and has supers logged off in a POS where your enemy can now stage in the same system.
Remember, all structures larger than a POCO are eventually getting removed or swapped to the Entosis system. POSes being one of the ones slated for outright removal and replacement with the new stuff. Also comparatively a POS isn't particularly more defensible than an Entosis Sov structure IMO. There's no restrictions on when you trigger the first timer, then you have two more timers to hit but if the enemy just blobs Caps and Supers they can DPS down the POS faster than a 30-40 minute Entosis timer. |
Bowbndr
Twisted Metal Inc. Northern Associates.
12
|
Posted - 2015.04.17 04:59:36 -
[413] - Quote
Rowells wrote:Bowbndr wrote:so what your doing is making it so that your large Goon and CFC friends can just cover all of null sec because they keep people online and running this link, While smaller groups will be pushed out of null completely because they don't have the manpower to constantly defend against these links.
I fail to see how this kind of mechanic helps the little guys at all.
*Snip* Please refrain from personal attacks. ISD Ezwal. if yure going to claim goons are trying to take all of null in any way, you might want to check news sites more often. I doubt dropping two regions from CFC (or Imperium as it is now) is the next step in their nullsec-domination plan. And with NC. dropping renters this is a prime time for the smaller dudes to swarm in and grab what they can hold. And have you considered how many people will target the northern space, simply because they hate goons? I can see plenty of un-used space going either unclaimed or being flip-flopped depending on who shows up.
Dropping a few regions and "announcing" the end of the CFC mean nothing as long as CCP allowes them to keep everyone else from holding sov. the only thing Fozzy's new goonsov will do is make it so they can extort others without having to hold the sov themselves. |
Bowbndr
Twisted Metal Inc. Northern Associates.
12
|
Posted - 2015.04.17 05:02:09 -
[414] - Quote
Bowbndr wrote:so what your doing is making it so that your large Goon and CFC friends can just cover all of null sec because they keep people online and running this link, While smaller groups will be pushed out of null completely because they don't have the manpower to constantly defend against these links.
I fail to see how this kind of mechanic helps the little guys at all.
*Snip* Please refrain from personal attacks. ISD Ezwal.
I dident name the changes Fozzy sov I would look to whoever laid his name under the goon bootheal |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
6712
|
Posted - 2015.04.17 05:29:54 -
[415] - Quote
Bowbndr wrote:Rowells wrote:Bowbndr wrote:so what your doing is making it so that your large Goon and CFC friends can just cover all of null sec because they keep people online and running this link, While smaller groups will be pushed out of null completely because they don't have the manpower to constantly defend against these links.
I fail to see how this kind of mechanic helps the little guys at all.
*Snip* Please refrain from personal attacks. ISD Ezwal. if yure going to claim goons are trying to take all of null in any way, you might want to check news sites more often. I doubt dropping two regions from CFC (or Imperium as it is now) is the next step in their nullsec-domination plan. And with NC. dropping renters this is a prime time for the smaller dudes to swarm in and grab what they can hold. And have you considered how many people will target the northern space, simply because they hate goons? I can see plenty of un-used space going either unclaimed or being flip-flopped depending on who shows up. Dropping a few regions and "announcing" the end of the CFC mean nothing as long as CCP allowes them to keep everyone else from holding sov. the only thing Fozzy's new goonsov will do is make it so they can extort others without having to hold the sov themselves. So no one holds the sov. Everyone wins
^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears.
Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
|
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans
2290
|
Posted - 2015.04.17 05:35:48 -
[416] - Quote
Bowbndr wrote:Rowells wrote:Bowbndr wrote:so what your doing is making it so that your large Goon and CFC friends can just cover all of null sec because they keep people online and running this link, While smaller groups will be pushed out of null completely because they don't have the manpower to constantly defend against these links.
I fail to see how this kind of mechanic helps the little guys at all.
*Snip* Please refrain from personal attacks. ISD Ezwal. if yure going to claim goons are trying to take all of null in any way, you might want to check news sites more often. I doubt dropping two regions from CFC (or Imperium as it is now) is the next step in their nullsec-domination plan. And with NC. dropping renters this is a prime time for the smaller dudes to swarm in and grab what they can hold. And have you considered how many people will target the northern space, simply because they hate goons? I can see plenty of un-used space going either unclaimed or being flip-flopped depending on who shows up. Dropping a few regions and "announcing" the end of the CFC mean nothing as long as CCP allowes them to keep everyone else from holding sov. the only thing Fozzy's new goonsov will do is make it so they can extort others without having to hold the sov themselves. Dropping sov means nobody gets sov. Neat.
If thats the case, I guess taking all the sov means everyone gets sov? |
Cade Windstalker
Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra
389
|
Posted - 2015.04.17 05:38:32 -
[417] - Quote
Bowbndr wrote:Dropping a few regions and "announcing" the end of the CFC mean nothing as long as CCP allowes them to keep everyone else from holding sov. the only thing Fozzy's new goonsov will do is make it so they can extort others without having to hold the sov themselves.
It's an interesting theory, but they could also, in theory, do this now. They've got a big enough cap fleet, deep enough pockets, and more than enough members to run around rolling everyone's sov in a nice circle. The thing is that it's impractical in the long run and everyone knows it. Whether or not the CFC successfully rolls around trolling Sov is going to depend heavily on the final mechanics and how everyone reacts to them. My bet is this is another one of those "great in theory, doesn't quite work in practice" things. |
Bowbndr
Twisted Metal Inc. Northern Associates.
12
|
Posted - 2015.04.17 20:02:11 -
[418] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote:Bowbndr wrote:Dropping a few regions and "announcing" the end of the CFC mean nothing as long as CCP allowes them to keep everyone else from holding sov. the only thing Fozzy's new goonsov will do is make it so they can extort others without having to hold the sov themselves. It's an interesting theory, but they could also, in theory, do this now. They've got a big enough cap fleet, deep enough pockets, and more than enough members to run around rolling everyone's sov in a nice circle. The thing is that it's impractical in the long run and everyone knows it. Whether or not the CFC successfully rolls around trolling Sov is going to depend heavily on the final mechanics and how everyone reacts to them. My bet is this is another one of those "great in theory, doesn't quite work in practice" things.
The problem for doing it now is that they would have to pay sov bill for any systems they take. Under the new system they can kill systems for other groups in the game with next to no risk on their part and they don't have to roll with a structure bashing fleet. just send in fleets with their new toy from CCP Fozzy and they can kill all reason to do anything in Null.
if you think about it is actualy a vary smart move for them to "give up" their regions. They get to loose their sov bill and yet I would be willing to bet that they keep collecting "Rent" from the area. |
Bowbndr
Twisted Metal Inc. Northern Associates.
12
|
Posted - 2015.04.17 23:46:20 -
[419] - Quote
Alavaria Fera wrote:Bowbndr wrote:Rowells wrote:Bowbndr wrote:so what your doing is making it so that your large Goon and CFC friends can just cover all of null sec because they keep people online and running this link, While smaller groups will be pushed out of null completely because they don't have the manpower to constantly defend against these links.
I fail to see how this kind of mechanic helps the little guys at all.
*Snip* Please refrain from personal attacks. ISD Ezwal. if yure going to claim goons are trying to take all of null in any way, you might want to check news sites more often. I doubt dropping two regions from CFC (or Imperium as it is now) is the next step in their nullsec-domination plan. And with NC. dropping renters this is a prime time for the smaller dudes to swarm in and grab what they can hold. And have you considered how many people will target the northern space, simply because they hate goons? I can see plenty of un-used space going either unclaimed or being flip-flopped depending on who shows up. Dropping a few regions and "announcing" the end of the CFC mean nothing as long as CCP allowes them to keep everyone else from holding sov. the only thing Fozzy's new goonsov will do is make it so they can extort others without having to hold the sov themselves. So no one holds the sov. Everyone wins
I don't think I would say everyone wins. I think that the large blocks win because they don't have to pay sov bills anymore. all these little corps that try to make it in Null have to pay not only the sov bill, but whatever extortion the big blocks want to not kill their sov. sounds more like the only ones who win are the big power blocks.
Wonder why they all seam to be dropping their sov??? |
Bowbndr
Twisted Metal Inc. Northern Associates.
12
|
Posted - 2015.04.17 23:49:05 -
[420] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote:Bowbndr wrote:Dropping a few regions and "announcing" the end of the CFC mean nothing as long as CCP allowes them to keep everyone else from holding sov. the only thing Fozzy's new goonsov will do is make it so they can extort others without having to hold the sov themselves. It's an interesting theory, but they could also, in theory, do this now. They've got a big enough cap fleet, deep enough pockets, and more than enough members to run around rolling everyone's sov in a nice circle. The thing is that it's impractical in the long run and everyone knows it. Whether or not the CFC successfully rolls around trolling Sov is going to depend heavily on the final mechanics and how everyone reacts to them. My bet is this is another one of those "great in theory, doesn't quite work in practice" things.
My personal feeling is that Fozzy's Goonsov is going to be the biggest blow to eve EVER. I cant remember anything in the 5 year that I have been playing that has the potential to do so much damage to the eve community. |
|
Iroquoiss Pliskin
Hedion University Amarr Empire
351
|
Posted - 2015.04.17 23:50:24 -
[421] - Quote
Interesting theory. Not really.
I think someone is butthurt about their Dysprosium moons.
// Turret-Equivalent of the Rapid ML Concept
//
Cruisers Online - [Damage done in PvP by Shiptype]
|
Cade Windstalker
Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra
390
|
Posted - 2015.04.18 02:01:35 -
[422] - Quote
Bowbndr wrote:The problem for doing it now is that they would have to pay sov bill for any systems they take. Under the new system they can kill systems for other groups in the game with next to no risk on their part and they don't have to roll with a structure bashing fleet. just send in fleets with their new toy from CCP Fozzy and they can kill all reason to do anything in Null.
if you think about it is actualy a vary smart move for them to "give up" their regions. They get to loose their sov bill and yet I would be willing to bet that they keep collecting "Rent" from the area.
This... isn't really correct. If goons take the area then they have to pay the sov bill. If someone else takes it then they have to pay the sov bill. If you want to seriously threaten space then you have to take it. It doesn't matter if it's Goons holding the final flag or a shell corp.
Besides, having caps on the field is still a big strategic asset, so you at least need enough to deal with a Carrier or you're handing the defender a big advantage.
Really I'm not seeing where this makes Sov any easier to hold or deny to the enemy. You still need assets on the field and skin in the game, and that means you can lose assets and over extend. Certainly at the very least you can't be everywhere all the time and if you **** off enough people they start hitting those assets and other stuff while you're busy dealing with someone else.
Besides, if the large blocks try to "extort" people for territory then it has to be financially worth it to the renters, same as now, which means there's a finite limit on how much you can extort before you simply drive people out of the area entirely.
Like I said, great theory but I don't see it happening in practice. There are too many "what if's" and too many "only if's" in this to start making grand proclamations of doom and gloom. |
Naidrag
Git-R-Done Logistics Git-R-Done Inc
0
|
Posted - 2015.04.18 02:19:54 -
[423] - Quote
Just an off the wall idea.
Maybe add a little functionality to the entasis link until the new structures come out you can use it to hack an offline tower. Might add a new carrier in high sec to hack the offline tower to take control of it.
It's gust a crazy idea. |
Bowbndr
Twisted Metal Inc. Northern Associates.
12
|
Posted - 2015.04.18 05:35:27 -
[424] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote:Bowbndr wrote:The problem for doing it now is that they would have to pay sov bill for any systems they take. Under the new system they can kill systems for other groups in the game with next to no risk on their part and they don't have to roll with a structure bashing fleet. just send in fleets with their new toy from CCP Fozzy and they can kill all reason to do anything in Null.
if you think about it is actualy a vary smart move for them to "give up" their regions. They get to loose their sov bill and yet I would be willing to bet that they keep collecting "Rent" from the area. This... isn't really correct. If goons take the area then they have to pay the sov bill. If someone else takes it then they have to pay the sov bill. If you want to seriously threaten space then you have to take it. It doesn't matter if it's Goons holding the final flag or a shell corp. Besides, having caps on the field is still a big strategic asset, so you at least need enough to deal with a Carrier or you're handing the defender a big advantage. Really I'm not seeing where this makes Sov any easier to hold or deny to the enemy. You still need assets on the field and skin in the game, and that means you can lose assets and over extend. Certainly at the very least you can't be everywhere all the time and if you **** off enough people they start hitting those assets and other stuff while you're busy dealing with someone else. Besides, if the large blocks try to "extort" people for territory then it has to be financially worth it to the renters, same as now, which means there's a finite limit on how much you can extort before you simply drive people out of the area entirely. Like I said, great theory but I don't see it happening in practice. There are too many "what if's" and too many "only if's" in this to start making grand proclamations of doom and gloom. Bowbndr wrote:My personal feeling is that Fozzy's Goonsov is going to be the biggest blow to eve EVER. I cant remember anything in the 5 year that I have been playing that has the potential to do so much damage to the eve community. And if I had $5 for every time I've seen someone declare Eve dead as a result of some change or other, or declare that CCP is *clearly* favoring one side or another in Null I'd be able to pay off my college debt and PLEX my account until the real year 23251. So far Eve is still here and someone doing everything is complaining that CCP is out to ruin their particular style of play.
Im not saying eve is going to die, far from it. WOW is about the most brain dead game I know and it makes a killing, but making eve in to a space based WOW is going to do nothing to "help" it either, other than dumb down the player base.
as far as the sov goes the biggest looser in that race IS going to be CCP when people understand that Fozzy sov removes all incentive to fight for a system. when CCP Clearly stacks the deck in the favor of the attacker then there will be no point in any Indy based corps to even attempt to hold sov. unless they have a pvp wing to defend their system they will just be throwing away isk to the guys that have no intention to hold the sov, just "create content" IE force their game style on those surround them.
|
Bowbndr
Twisted Metal Inc. Northern Associates.
12
|
Posted - 2015.04.18 05:44:59 -
[425] - Quote
ok let me sum this up so that I can make my point a little clearer. everyone keep acting like N3 and Goons giving up their space is this big void, but in reality what fozzy sov dose is make it so they don't have to pay a sov bill to extort those that live there. at the same time why should any group bother to put their time, effort and isk into building up a system when anyone from the big power blocks to the 15 to 20 man griever corps can come in and destroy everything they have done with little to no risk of their own. or at the very least minimal isk on the line.
Some of the systems I have lived in have had Billions worth of upgrades and stations and station upgrades put into them. and once fozzy sov takes affect some 15 to 20 man corp can come out to null sec in what amounts to a fleet of less than let say 750 mill and kill a system?
I Agree that there needs to be changes, but Fozzy sov is like asking a piece of tape to keep a dam together. your asking one group to risk Billions to get these systems and upgrade them and get them how they want them and for what? |
Cade Windstalker
Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra
391
|
Posted - 2015.04.18 06:01:28 -
[426] - Quote
Bowbndr wrote:Im not saying eve is going to die, far from it. WOW is about the most brain dead game I know and it makes a killing, but making eve in to a space based WOW is going to do nothing to "help" it either, other than dumb down the player base.
as far as the sov goes the biggest looser in that race IS going to be CCP when people understand that Fozzy sov removes all incentive to fight for a system. when CCP Clearly stacks the deck in the favor of the attacker then there will be no point in any Indy based corps to even attempt to hold sov. unless they have a pvp wing to defend their system they will just be throwing away isk to the guys that have no intention to hold the sov, just "create content" IE force their game style on those surround them.
I just don't think this is the case, at least certainly no more than it ever was under old Sov. Defenders need to control a grid for a fraction of the time of attackers, defenders have all of their assets and reinforcements close-by by default, defenders have access to all of their structures and structure based bonuses, and attackers have to spend a good amount of time (at least for active space) actually capturing in order to flip sov instead of the current "roll through with a Dread/Titan/Carrier ball and done in 10 minutes" system.
I don't think the intent has *ever* been to allow a purely Industrial corp to hold Sov. That's simply unrealistic unless they have someone defending them. This has never been the case and I honestly hope it never is because if an Indy corp can hold Sov independently then it either means it's worthless or the system is so exploitable that any corp at all can hold Sov with little to no risk.
Really I'm just not seeing your problem with the Sov system here. Defenders need to defend their space, and do so effectively. No where does this allow some 15-20 man griefer corp to come in and knock it all over, at least unless your Alliance is so inactive that it has fewer than 20 active members, in which case I refer you to what happened to Atlas Alliance. |
Bowbndr
Twisted Metal Inc. Northern Associates.
12
|
Posted - 2015.04.18 08:42:30 -
[427] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote:Bowbndr wrote:Im not saying eve is going to die, far from it. WOW is about the most brain dead game I know and it makes a killing, but making eve in to a space based WOW is going to do nothing to "help" it either, other than dumb down the player base.
as far as the sov goes the biggest looser in that race IS going to be CCP when people understand that Fozzy sov removes all incentive to fight for a system. when CCP Clearly stacks the deck in the favor of the attacker then there will be no point in any Indy based corps to even attempt to hold sov. unless they have a pvp wing to defend their system they will just be throwing away isk to the guys that have no intention to hold the sov, just "create content" IE force their game style on those surround them.
I just don't think this is the case, at least certainly no more than it ever was under old Sov. Defenders need to control a grid for a fraction of the time of attackers, defenders have all of their assets and reinforcements close-by by default, defenders have access to all of their structures and structure based bonuses, and attackers have to spend a good amount of time (at least for active space) actually capturing in order to flip sov instead of the current "roll through with a Dread/Titan/Carrier ball and done in 10 minutes" system. I don't think the intent has *ever* been to allow a purely Industrial corp to hold Sov. That's simply unrealistic unless they have someone defending them. This has never been the case and I honestly hope it never is because if an Indy corp can hold Sov independently then it either means it's worthless or the system is so exploitable that any corp at all can hold Sov with little to no risk. Really I'm just not seeing your problem with the Sov system here. Defenders need to defend their space, and do so effectively. No where does this allow some 15-20 man griefer corp to come in and knock it all over, at least unless your Alliance is so inactive that it has fewer than 20 active members, in which case I refer you to what happened to Atlas Alliance.
so you don't see how attacker throwing a few hundred mill into some t1 ships and links is the same as the billions that a corp has to put in to getting a system up and running? hmm wonder where you learned your math.
I fail to see how you could call that fair in any way. |
Cade Windstalker
Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra
392
|
Posted - 2015.04.18 15:28:40 -
[428] - Quote
Bowbndr wrote:so you don't see how attacker throwing a few hundred mill into some t1 ships and links is the same as the billions that a corp has to put in to getting a system up and running? hmm wonder where you learned your math.
I fail to see how you could call that fair in any way.
For a start, because they need to actually successfully take the system with those T1 ships.
Beyond that, it's the same way that a group of T1 bare-bones fit Catalysis ganking a Freighter with billions in loot is fair, by which I mean to say it isn't, you're supposed to avoid having that happen to you. The same way you're supposed to defend your space when people attack it.
I do sort of see what you mean about the value of an attacking fleet of Dreads and Titans vs the value of a POS or TCU or whatever, but that only really matters if the blob is actually at risk of dying and most of the time it's really not. Right now you *can* structure grind with a fleet of Oracles and T1 Logi, it just takes a long time. That's the same T1 fleet that you're complaining about here, and it's just as capable of taking your stuff as it is now, at least if you don't oppose it. The value of the Titans and Dreads is that they're hard to kill and they blap through the Structure's timer very very quickly when unopposed.
Personally I'd say the T1 cruiser fleet is more fair, not less. |
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans
2305
|
Posted - 2015.04.18 15:33:15 -
[429] - Quote
The sheer money you put in something shouldn't be its primary defense. It should be the owners. |
Hafwolf
StarHunt Mordus Angels
9
|
Posted - 2015.04.18 15:53:55 -
[430] - Quote
I don't think the new sov system will change much for the sov. The null sec alliances have there assets in place and can defend there sov no matter what type of system ccp throws at them. The only difference i see is there might be that they might get more concentrated to make defense easier for them selves.
If the null alliances kind of pull back and concentrate that might open up some areas for a smaller alliance to get take sov. Also it might change that renters will now hold sov since they will be living in the systems. And the larger alliance Allows them to be there and have blue status. I really don't see sov map changing other then trols doing the trolcepter idea just to get fights.
If an actuall alliance wants to take sov they will still most likely still work with existing sov meta game to get and keep it. |
|
Cade Windstalker
Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra
393
|
Posted - 2015.04.18 17:38:56 -
[431] - Quote
Hafwolf wrote:I don't think the new sov system will change much for the sov. The null sec alliances have there assets in place and can defend there sov no matter what type of system ccp throws at them. The only difference i see is there might be that they might get more concentrated to make defense easier for them selves.
If the null alliances kind of pull back and concentrate that might open up some areas for a smaller alliance to get take sov. Also it might change that renters will now hold sov since they will be living in the systems. And the larger alliance Allows them to be there and have blue status. I really don't see sov map changing other then trols doing the trolcepter idea just to get fights.
If an actuall alliance wants to take sov they will still most likely still work with existing sov meta game to get and keep it.
With the current iteration of the ideas troll-ceptors are dead in the water. You need to fit a short mod to actually fit anything else, and you're still seriously gimping the fit to do it. A Recon can pretty much land on grid with you and nail you, and if they miss an Inty can chase you down and kill you as long as the Entosis Link is online because you're slower than any comparably fit Inty due to the mass penalty.
As for the established Alliances. This makes it sound like Sov never changes hands under the current system, or that no big and established powers have ever been done in by anyone before. Anyone remember BoB and how they went from permanent fixture to "OMG Fail-scade" in literally minutes? (and yes I'm simplifying but still)
If this opens up a little more room for people to work and for good fights to happen without a dread/Titan blob the size of a large Moon then I think that's a win. |
Nalles
Volition Cult The Volition Cult
11
|
Posted - 2015.04.19 21:00:25 -
[432] - Quote
To prevent grind all day, I would like to see the node being hacked going in to reinforcement if hacked unsuccesful. Just for 10-20min, which would give the defenders more time to organize. At the same time giving a "hacking-fatigue" to the node, so it is more defendable if they keep "spamming" it. |
Iroquoiss Pliskin
Hedion University Amarr Empire
371
|
Posted - 2015.04.19 21:09:30 -
[433] - Quote
That would be a super-artificial limitation with timers, arguably more boring than HP grind.
Suppose a defending fleet stops your progress by neutralising the Entosis ship, and then you immediately secure the grid and/or system by decimating said defending fleet.
Should we wait 30 minutes on a timer to make another attempt in a completely secure system? What of defending fleet coming in every half an hour to blap the Entosis ship and then retreat to watch MLP?
:nope:
Boredome weaponised 2.0.
// Turret-Equivalent of the Rapid ML Concept
//
Cruisers Online - [Damage done in PvP by Shiptype]
|
Cade Windstalker
Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra
398
|
Posted - 2015.04.19 21:30:31 -
[434] - Quote
Nalles wrote:To prevent grind all day, I would like to see the node being hacked going in to reinforcement if hacked unsuccesful. Just for 10-20min, which would give the defenders more time to organize. At the same time giving a "hacking-fatigue" to the node, so it is more defendable if they keep "spamming" it.
Defenders already have a bonus to flipping the structures/nodes back, and if your occupancy metrics are high you have 3-40 minutes from the time the hack starts which should be plenty, especially if there are actually people in those systems at prime-time to sound the alarm, then on top of that for Sov structures you have the node minigame which you know is coming.
Really not needed, and that "hacking-fatigue" thing could be easily abused by just hacking your own stuff with an alt and then flipping it back quickly. |
Hafwolf
StarHunt Mordus Angels
9
|
Posted - 2015.04.19 22:14:54 -
[435] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote:
As for the established Alliances. This makes it sound like Sov never changes hands under the current system, or that no big and established powers have ever been done in by anyone before. Anyone remember BoB and how they went from permanent fixture to "OMG Fail-scade" in literally minutes? (and yes I'm simplifying but still)
If this opens up a little more room for people to work and for good fights to happen without a dread/Titan blob the size of a large Moon then I think that's a win.
What I meant was that the larger more robust alliances are the one's that usually hold sov in null. The coalitions and the sov meta game is the problem that I see. Yes they do fail cascade every now and then. I see the meta system that is place being hard to get rid of. Even rival coalitions in null sec use the same meta game system of renters and sheer numbers to control their regions. What usually happens is renters are brought in to make isk for these alliances. Also the renters become a recruitment center for the landlords.
What I really see is smaller alliances holding sov as renters of the larger alliances knowing that as long as they pay there rent they can have their sov and their system.
What I think would be cool is if the main alliances would concentrate more in there home regions creating space for new just starting alliances to maybe capture a system then have to fight other smaller alliances to keep that system. |
Cade Windstalker
Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra
398
|
Posted - 2015.04.19 22:32:01 -
[436] - Quote
Hafwolf wrote:What I meant was that the larger more robust alliances are the one's that usually hold sov in null. The coalitions and the sov meta game is the problem that I see. Yes they do fail cascade every now and then. I see the meta system that is place being hard to get rid of. Even rival coalitions in null sec use the same meta game system of renters and sheer numbers to control their regions. What usually happens is renters are brought in to make isk for these alliances. Also the renters become a recruitment center for the landlords.
What I really see is smaller alliances holding sov as renters of the larger alliances knowing that as long as they pay there rent they can have their sov and their system.
What I think would be cool is if the main alliances would concentrate more in there home regions creating space for new just starting alliances to maybe capture a system then have to fight other smaller alliances to keep that system.
I think renting is going to be a lot less feasible in this version of Sov, because renters don't generally contribute to defense and the Alliance that holds the sov needs to be able to defend it in this system. Groups might be able to work something out with corps that are renters being part of the alliance but that's likely to create op-sec issues if nothing else. CFC have already announced that they're closing down their renter program.
It's possible the larger alliances will try to extort the smaller ones but at the moment that's just speculation. If they don't want the sov and they can't afford to just take space they're not using then where's the credibility of the threat? They can certainly harass and fight the defenders but even then it's still no worse than the current system.
At the end of the day there's always going to be a meta-game element to Sov in Eve and IMO that's fine. The players get the meta-game they create for themselves, if you want to overthrow the current meta-game then figure out a way to do it as a player. |
Anhenka
Infinite Point Nulli Secunda
1430
|
Posted - 2015.04.19 23:37:29 -
[437] - Quote
Hafwolf wrote:Cade Windstalker wrote:
As for the established Alliances. This makes it sound like Sov never changes hands under the current system, or that no big and established powers have ever been done in by anyone before. Anyone remember BoB and how they went from permanent fixture to "OMG Fail-scade" in literally minutes? (and yes I'm simplifying but still)
If this opens up a little more room for people to work and for good fights to happen without a dread/Titan blob the size of a large Moon then I think that's a win.
What I meant was that the larger more robust alliances are the one's that usually hold sov in null. The coalitions and the sov meta game is the problem that I see. Yes they do fail cascade every now and then. I see the meta system that is place being hard to get rid of. Even rival coalitions in null sec use the same meta game system of renters and sheer numbers to control their regions. What usually happens is renters are brought in to make isk for these alliances. Also the renters become a recruitment center for the landlords. What I really see is smaller alliances holding sov as renters of the larger alliances knowing that as long as they pay there rent they can have their sov and their system. What I think would be cool is if the main alliances would concentrate more in there home regions creating space for new just starting alliances to maybe capture a system then have to fight other smaller alliances to keep that system. Things are rather unsettled atm.
NC told NA. they were free, and that they were being reset, and abandon ship. Goons just told PBLRD the same thing.
BoT I have no idea. I had thought PL was out of the renter game but they are still around. I doubt they are long for this world.
Even just between NA and PBLRD, that's 500 systems that are about to lose an interested landlord.
And that's not even talking about the CFC plling up out of Delve/Fountain/Outer Ring. Or Nulli, Evoke, and friends pulling out of Impass/Feythbolis/Teneferis/Esoteria/Detorid. Although IIRC, Gclub is going to try and keep space in Immensea.
There's so much space abut to be up for grabs it's ridiculous. |
d0cTeR9
Astro Technologies SpaceMonkey's Alliance
134
|
Posted - 2015.04.20 01:22:29 -
[438] - Quote
Bowbndr wrote:ok let me sum this up so that I can make my point a little clearer. everyone keep acting like N3 and Goons giving up their space is this big void, but in reality what fozzy sov dose is make it so they don't have to pay a sov bill to extort those that live there. at the same time why should any group bother to put their time, effort and isk into building up a system when anyone from the big power blocks to the 15 to 20 man griever corps can come in and destroy everything they have done with little to no risk of their own. or at the very least minimal isk on the line.
Some of the systems I have lived in have had Billions worth of upgrades and stations and station upgrades put into them. and once fozzy sov takes affect some 15 to 20 man corp can come out to null sec in what amounts to a fleet of less than let say 750 mill and kill a system?
I Agree that there needs to be changes, but Fozzy sov is like asking a piece of tape to keep a dam together. your asking one group to risk Billions to get these systems and upgrade them and get them how they want them and for what?
Yupp, YEARS and BILLIONS/TRILLIONS in isk spent is reduced to nothing because 'lets make EVE, ALL of EVE available to every new noob'.
Also to everyone making the mistake... it's The Emperium, not CFC. |
Yun Kuai
Justified Chaos Spaceship Bebop
249
|
Posted - 2015.04.20 01:31:04 -
[439] - Quote
Anhenka wrote:Hafwolf wrote:Cade Windstalker wrote:
As for the established Alliances. This makes it sound like Sov never changes hands under the current system, or that no big and established powers have ever been done in by anyone before. Anyone remember BoB and how they went from permanent fixture to "OMG Fail-scade" in literally minutes? (and yes I'm simplifying but still)
If this opens up a little more room for people to work and for good fights to happen without a dread/Titan blob the size of a large Moon then I think that's a win.
What I meant was that the larger more robust alliances are the one's that usually hold sov in null. The coalitions and the sov meta game is the problem that I see. Yes they do fail cascade every now and then. I see the meta system that is place being hard to get rid of. Even rival coalitions in null sec use the same meta game system of renters and sheer numbers to control their regions. What usually happens is renters are brought in to make isk for these alliances. Also the renters become a recruitment center for the landlords. What I really see is smaller alliances holding sov as renters of the larger alliances knowing that as long as they pay there rent they can have their sov and their system. What I think would be cool is if the main alliances would concentrate more in there home regions creating space for new just starting alliances to maybe capture a system then have to fight other smaller alliances to keep that system. Things are rather unsettled atm. NC told NA. they were free, and that they were being reset, and abandon ship. Goons just told PBLRD the same thing. BoT I have no idea. I had thought PL was out of the renter game but they are still around. I doubt they are long for this world. Even just between NA and PBLRD, that's 500 systems that are about to lose an interested landlord. And that's not even talking about the CFC plling up out of Delve/Fountain/Outer Ring. Or Nulli, Evoke, and friends pulling out of Impass/Feythbolis/Teneferis/Esoteria/Detorid. Although IIRC, Gclub is going to try and keep space in Immensea. There's so much space abut to be up for grabs it's ridiculous.
And.....that's so much space up for grabs plus the extreme amount of content if the big blocks/everyone else decides to roll around in small fleets to "troll sov". If the days of roaming gangs come back.....holy crap nullsec will be awesome again. This whole, sit on titan, right click, jump to system, hit f1, circle jerk on comms for being awesome has really dumbed down the game in a lot of ways and I'll be glad to see if take a back seat to roaming gangs again.
I still think too many people underestimate the effect of the entosis link on the ship that has it activated. Take a hint from the FW guys who have been doing this meta game for years. You can and will successfully gank stuff much larger than you, much more valuable than you, etc. and if it means throwing a whole fleet into something just to get that one ship kill to stop the timer, you can guarantee it will happen. If you haven't been into Black Rise in the last 2 years, which I most know most of the major players have, then let me tell you about the derptron. Absolutely hate the ship personally, but when you need to just keep taking down 1 ship at a time knowing full well you're going to lose the entire fleet....well I'll let you nullbears figure out the rest.
Also, I'm going to add my two cents to this because so many people keep saying this new sov favors the attacker. If you actually use your space and then you actually defend your space, then the attackers have no advantage. You guys really need to look past the current "weaponize your boredom" sov that is today and look at how the new sov mechancis favor such a vastly different play style.
--------------------------------------------------------::::::::::::--:::-----:::---::::::::::::--------------:::----------:::----:::---:::----------------------:::::::-------:::---:::----::::::-------------------:::-----------:::--:::----:::---------------------::::::::::::----:::::::----:::::::::::::-------
|
Cade Windstalker
Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra
398
|
Posted - 2015.04.20 03:27:20 -
[440] - Quote
d0cTeR9 wrote:Yupp, YEARS and BILLIONS/TRILLIONS in isk spent is reduced to nothing because 'lets make EVE, ALL of EVE available to every new noob'.
Also to everyone making the mistake... it's The Emperium, not CFC.
As long as you still know what we're talking about it's the CFC, and CFC is quicker to say
Also, regarding trillions being reduced to nothing, what do you think B-R5RB was? At the end of the day both were the result of player decisions. There's nothing forcing this particular course of action, but it's a decent move while people wait and see what's going to happen next.
Oh and to clarify, apparently PBLRD space is going to be re-allocated to other CFC members and the renters are being offered safe evac and time to tear down and move out, or the opportunity to app to CFC alliances.
Yun Kuai wrote:And.....that's so much space up for grabs plus the extreme amount of content if the big blocks/everyone else decides to roll around in small fleets to "troll sov". If the days of roaming gangs come back.....holy crap nullsec will be awesome again. This whole, sit on titan, right click, jump to system, hit f1, circle jerk on comms for being awesome has really dumbed down the game in a lot of ways and I'll be glad to see if take a back seat to roaming gangs again.
I still think too many people underestimate the effect of the entosis link on the ship that has it activated. Take a hint from the FW guys who have been doing this meta game for years. You can and will successfully gank stuff much larger than you, much more valuable than you, etc. and if it means throwing a whole fleet into something just to get that one ship kill to stop the timer, you can guarantee it will happen. If you haven't been into Black Rise in the last 2 years, which I most know most of the major players have, then let me tell you about the derptron. Absolutely hate the ship personally, but when you need to just keep taking down 1 ship at a time knowing full well you're going to lose the entire fleet....well I'll let you nullbears figure out the rest.
Also, I'm going to add my two cents to this because so many people keep saying this new sov favors the attacker. If you actually use your space and then you actually defend your space, then the attackers have no advantage. You guys really need to look past the current "weaponize your boredom" sov that is today and look at how the new sov mechancis favor such a vastly different play style.
I agree with pretty much all of this, especially the last bit.
I figure there will be a month or more of "OMG Sov trolling is so hilarious! LOLOLOLOL!!! " and then the people who can't cut it will stop being targets, the people who can will find a way to make not actually attacking seriously either just as fun for them as it is for the attackers or more boring/annoying for the attackers than it is for the defenders. After all fights are fun and the defenders win if they have fun, then all they need to do is either annoy the attackers to death or provoke them into bringing a real fight instead of troll-cruisers (or whatever).
The one thing I don't think it will do is play out like Faction Warfare, since FW doesn't have vulnerability timers or people actively living in every system for every hour the 'plexes are vulnerable. It may start out looking similar, and I think CCP have taken the best bits of FW mechanics, but I don't think it'll play out like FWar does. |
|
Jenshae Chiroptera
1362
|
Posted - 2015.04.20 05:05:17 -
[441] - Quote
My popcorn is ready for when a strong all around coalition kicks out a prime EU TZ alliance from a region and installs a US -> AU TZ alliance (that probably paid them) in their place (or for free like Brave into Fountain)
CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids
.
High Sec needs a stepping stone to other areas of space, where they can grow
Fozzie is treating a symptom.
|
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
6713
|
Posted - 2015.04.20 05:13:04 -
[442] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote:Yun Kuai wrote:You guys really need to look past the current "weaponize your boredom" sov that is today and look at how the new sov mechancis favor such a vastly different play style. After all fights are fun and the defenders win if they have fun, then all they need to do is either annoy the attackers to death or provoke them into bringing a real fight instead of troll-cruisers (or whatever). Basically yeah.
You need a new approach that adapts to the sov laser in order to efficiently weaponize boredom.
^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears.
Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
|
Cade Windstalker
Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra
398
|
Posted - 2015.04.20 05:50:37 -
[443] - Quote
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:My popcorn is ready for when a strong all around coalition kicks out a prime EU TZ alliance from a region and installs a US -> AU TZ alliance (that probably paid them) in their place (or for free like Brave into Fountain)
Because this has totally been a major issue under current TZ mechanics with fuel and timers?
I mean really, there's plenty happening or probably going to happen that might provoke an "oooo! free show!" response, but this just doesn't fit unless you didn't actually bother to read the dev-blog... |
WhyTry1
Ministry of War Amarr Empire
85
|
Posted - 2015.04.20 08:49:16 -
[444] - Quote
Disclaimer : I am not affiliated with any power bloc therefore this is not a biased post. Also this is my main and not an alt Smile However I have been playing eve for many years and have spent a silly amount of time in nullsec. Just thought i would get that in there before the alt, troll, grr goons, grrr n3, grrr whatever posts come....
Anyway, I have been thinking about the fozziesov thing for sometime, much like many others i guess. The recent changes with jump fatigue etc have been good, and i support that, it was needed. The lets hold lots of space, make billions renting lots of regions and not even living in it, just because you could throw 100 supers at someone in minutes was becoming a joke. I still don't think one alliance should be able to hold one full region to be honest and i would like to see the verite map changed to be sov only map not a influence map as it can wrongly give information about how much space one owns. But i digress...Sorry...
On to fozziesov, great idea as a concept, will make more fights local, will make people think a little more about the space they want to own and defend, especially for the larger alliances. Now i assumed (and maybe wrongly) that this was also to let the little guys get a chance to harass and even hold sov. Which would be great! However my concern is how really easy it is, meaning the time it takes to cause disruption.
We seem to have gone from one extreme to the other. Now again you may thing hey well that helps the little guys, but does it? My worry is the purposeful setting up of large newbie alliances to effectively cause havoc in nullsec just to create content. This isn't just about PL horde, although its convienient that a group that was so elitist all of a sudden decided to create a newb alliance, but also the likes of Brave and Goons. Which can effectively sum up 100,200,300+ gangs just to roam nullsec and disrupt lots of systems in a night, then go back again the next night and the next. The smaller alliances have literally no chance at all, they can compete with that may pilots 'constantly' roaming about, disrupting everything in 20 minutes. Surely fozzie must of thought of this and again just as the high sec poco debacle, they create a game that obviously favours Goons, and Brave and now PL Horde. I worry this will just have the complete opposite effect where no one dares live, or invest in nullsec because of the constant harassment. For example you think about increasing mining yield but who in the right mind is going to have mining sessions with 300+ people coming about constantly? I think this could actually end up destroying nullsec I always wonder if CCP every look at the bigger picture rather than this inward thinking... |
Jenshae Chiroptera
1364
|
Posted - 2015.04.20 11:33:18 -
[445] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote:Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:My popcorn is ready for when a strong all around coalition kicks out a prime EU TZ alliance from a region and installs a US -> AU TZ alliance (that probably paid them) in their place (or for free like Brave into Fountain) Because this has totally been a major issue under current TZ mechanics with fuel and timers? I mean really, there's plenty happening or probably going to happen that might provoke an "oooo! free show!" response, but this just doesn't fit unless you didn't actually bother to read the dev-blog... I have scanned and dropped a fleet onto a refuelling ship. Show me where the timer windows can be affected at all by the attackers.
CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids
.
High Sec needs a stepping stone to other areas of space, where they can grow
Fozzie is treating a symptom.
|
Veskrashen
Justified Chaos Spaceship Bebop
863
|
Posted - 2015.04.20 11:45:39 -
[446] - Quote
One question that still needs to be answered:
When does the interruption of an existing link occur?
In other words, bad guys are on a structure with an active Entosis Link, and the capture timer is ticking down. Our hero lands on grid, locks up the structure, and activates his own link. When is capture progress halted?
1) Progress halts once the second EL is activated? 2) Progress halts once the first cycle completes and the second EL is "synchronized"?
If 2, then you'll have a minimum of 2 minutes to murder any counter-links on grid before they halt your capture progress. If 1, however, you're in a situation where it's completely viable to suicide an endless stream of T1 crap onto grid, simply to interrupt the enemy's ability to capture the node.
Some clarity on this would be good, as the different modes have very different implications.
We Gallente have a saying: "CCP created the Gallente Militia to train the Fighters..."
|
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
6714
|
Posted - 2015.04.20 12:10:22 -
[447] - Quote
WhyTry1 wrote:Disclaimer : I am not affiliated with any power bloc therefore this is not a biased post. Also this is my main and not an alt Smile However I have been playing eve for many years and have spent a silly amount of time in nullsec. Just thought i would get that in there before the alt, troll, grr goons, grrr n3, grrr whatever posts come.... You're too late.Just posting here on that kind of character will already do that.
^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears.
Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
|
Cade Windstalker
Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra
399
|
Posted - 2015.04.20 18:56:54 -
[448] - Quote
Veskrashen wrote:One question that still needs to be answered:
When does the interruption of an existing link occur?
In other words, bad guys are on a structure with an active Entosis Link, and the capture timer is ticking down. Our hero lands on grid, locks up the structure, and activates his own link. When is capture progress halted?
1) Progress halts once the second EL is activated? 2) Progress halts once the first cycle completes and the second EL is "synchronized"?
If 2, then you'll have a minimum of 2 minutes to murder any counter-links on grid before they halt your capture progress. If 1, however, you're in a situation where it's completely viable to suicide an endless stream of T1 crap onto grid, simply to interrupt the enemy's ability to capture the node.
Some clarity on this would be good, as the different modes have very different implications.
I'd hardly call that viable. In either case you only halt progress as long as your link is working, so if you show up on grid, activate your link, and immediately blow up you've only stalled the capture for maybe 30 seconds at best. The enemy are still winning and you haven't ticked down the timer at all back in your favor, and you can't actually *stop* the cap, even if it's no longer your group's vulnerability period, until you tick the timer all the way back down to zero.
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:Cade Windstalker wrote:Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:My popcorn is ready for when a strong all around coalition kicks out a prime EU TZ alliance from a region and installs a US -> AU TZ alliance (that probably paid them) in their place (or for free like Brave into Fountain) Because this has totally been a major issue under current TZ mechanics with fuel and timers? I mean really, there's plenty happening or probably going to happen that might provoke an "oooo! free show!" response, but this just doesn't fit unless you didn't actually bother to read the dev-blog... I have scanned and dropped a fleet onto a refuelling ship. Show me where the timer windows can be affected at all by the attackers.
One, this bears almost no resemblance to your AU/EU TZ comment. Just because you could gank POS fuel doesn't make that good for TZ mechanics or mean there should be any relative equivalent of that in this system. If you can gank someone's refule you can hit their structures.
Two, the point of TZ mechanics is that you actually have a chance to defend your stuff when you're around to defend it. With two days of reinforcement you can set up an attack on someone in almost any TZ you like. If part of that is paying someone else in a more favorable TZ to nail an enemy the whatever, that's part of the meta-game. The people who just got their space knicked can pay someone else to knick it back if they really need to. |
Cade Windstalker
Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra
399
|
Posted - 2015.04.20 19:03:15 -
[449] - Quote
WhyTry1 wrote:Disclaimer : I am not affiliated with any power bloc therefore this is not a biased post. Also this is my main and not an alt Smile However I have been playing eve for many years and have spent a silly amount of time in nullsec. Just thought i would get that in there before the alt, troll, grr goons, grrr n3, grrr whatever posts come....
Anyway, I have been thinking about the fozziesov thing for sometime, much like many others i guess. The recent changes with jump fatigue etc have been good, and i support that, it was needed. The lets hold lots of space, make billions renting lots of regions and not even living in it, just because you could throw 100 supers at someone in minutes was becoming a joke. I still don't think one alliance should be able to hold one full region to be honest and i would like to see the verite map changed to be sov only map not a influence map as it can wrongly give information about how much space one owns. But i digress...Sorry...
Everyone is biased, you're just not biased by affiliation you're biased by your lack of it.
Those are maps created by third parties (aka, other players), they're not created by CCP. If you think the currently available maps don't present information accurately then feel free to create your own. At the end of the day though systems controlled doesn't really matter, and that info is clearly available on Dotlan as well. Flat saying someone can't own a region is unreasonable and not in keeping with CCP's balance practices. They may make it harder or discourage it, but they won't flat out say it's not possible.
WhyTry1 wrote:On to fozziesov, great idea as a concept, will make more fights local, will make people think a little more about the space they want to own and defend, especially for the larger alliances. Now i assumed (and maybe wrongly) that this was also to let the little guys get a chance to harass and even hold sov. Which would be great! However my concern is how really easy it is, meaning the time it takes to cause disruption.
We seem to have gone from one extreme to the other. Now again you may thing hey well that helps the little guys, but does it? My worry is the purposeful setting up of large newbie alliances to effectively cause havoc in nullsec just to create content. This isn't just about PL horde, although its convienient that a group that was so elitist all of a sudden decided to create a newb alliance, but also the likes of Brave and Goons. Which can effectively sum up 100,200,300+ gangs just to roam nullsec and disrupt lots of systems in a night, then go back again the next night and the next. The smaller alliances have literally no chance at all, they can compete with that may pilots 'constantly' roaming about, disrupting everything in 20 minutes. Surely fozzie must of thought of this and again just as the high sec poco debacle, they create a game that obviously favours Goons, and Brave and now PL Horde. I worry this will just have the complete opposite effect where no one dares live, or invest in nullsec because of the constant harassment. For example you think about increasing mining yield but who in the right mind is going to have mining sessions with 300+ people coming about constantly? I think this could actually end up destroying nullsec I always wonder if CCP every look at the bigger picture rather than this inward thinking...
The game obvious favors those who live in their space and are willing to defend it. There is no way to even eliminate the advantage of simply putting more bodies in ships than the other guy, that's just not possible while keeping the core gameplay of Eve intact.
Trust me, CCP have definitely considered this sort of gameplay, if you don't believe me look at the recent interview with CCP Fozzie. The defenders have a massive advantage so maybe those 300 people are running around but if they're going to seriously try and take your Sov they need to split up for the Node events, and you don't need to split up as much as the defender, so you have one 100 man fleet, and they've got 5-6 50 man fleets. Who wins each of those little fleet engagements? |
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
2062
|
Posted - 2015.04.20 19:21:09 -
[450] - Quote
Veskrashen wrote:One question that still needs to be answered:
When does the interruption of an existing link occur?
In other words, bad guys are on a structure with an active Entosis Link, and the capture timer is ticking down. Our hero lands on grid, locks up the structure, and activates his own link. When is capture progress halted?
1) Progress halts once the second EL is activated? 2) Progress halts once the first cycle completes and the second EL is "synchronized"?
If 2, then you'll have a minimum of 2 minutes to murder any counter-links on grid before they halt your capture progress. If 1, however, you're in a situation where it's completely viable to suicide an endless stream of T1 crap onto grid, simply to interrupt the enemy's ability to capture the node.
Some clarity on this would be good, as the different modes have very different implications. All links have a warmup cycle. So one would assume this is taken as given to not interrupt capture till it completes. It's not explicitly spelt out though, sure.
Also if you can continually flood the field in T1 crap, they don't have effective control of the field, even if they aren't losing anything you are still capable of fielding ships on grid to oppose them.
Also remember, the 'Window' is not a hard window. As soon as there is any time on the timer, it remains open 24/7 until that time is removed. So as long as they can stay on grid running their own link, they can continue to capture the structure once they have killed your 50,000 rifters with 20 mil modules each. |
|
Veskrashen
Justified Chaos Spaceship Bebop
863
|
Posted - 2015.04.20 20:34:44 -
[451] - Quote
Nevyn Auscent wrote:All links have a warmup cycle. So one would assume this is taken as given to not interrupt capture till it completes. It's not explicitly spelt out though, sure.
Also if you can continually flood the field in T1 crap, they don't have effective control of the field, even if they aren't losing anything you are still capable of fielding ships on grid to oppose them.
Also remember, the 'Window' is not a hard window. As soon as there is any time on the timer, it remains open 24/7 until that time is removed. So as long as they can stay on grid running their own link, they can continue to capture the structure once they have killed your 50,000 rifters with 20 mil modules each. Absolutely, if they can't keep you off field I'm totally good with the timer being interrupted. The reason I ask is the parallel to FW capture mechanics - if ships from both militias are within the 30km radius of the capture point, the timer freezes until one or the other is forced off.
The parallel for Entosis Links could be viewed either way. In FW, you don't have a warmup cycle, but you do have to kill NPCs. That's an argument for interruption to begin after the warmup cycle as a parallel.
On the other hand, the timer stops immediately once an opposing militia member arrives on grid. That argues for immediate interruption as the parallel.
Either way could be viable under the new system, but it does determine the degree of effort that you have to put into contesting the timer. If it's possible to use attrition tactics to stall a capture long enough to get your main force on field, that's much different than if the bad guys get a full warmup cycle before the interruption begins. That kind of a system would require your opponent to murder all your links in a hurry, otherwise you continue to make progress even while he's on field.
We Gallente have a saying: "CCP created the Gallente Militia to train the Fighters..."
|
Cade Windstalker
Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra
403
|
Posted - 2015.04.20 23:12:28 -
[452] - Quote
Veskrashen wrote:Absolutely, if they can't keep you off field I'm totally good with the timer being interrupted. The reason I ask is the parallel to FW capture mechanics - if ships from both militias are within the 30km radius of the capture point, the timer freezes until one or the other is forced off.
The parallel for Entosis Links could be viewed either way. In FW, you don't have a warmup cycle, but you do have to kill NPCs. That's an argument for interruption to begin after the warmup cycle as a parallel.
On the other hand, the timer stops immediately once an opposing militia member arrives on grid. That argues for immediate interruption as the parallel.
Either way could be viable under the new system, but it does determine the degree of effort that you have to put into contesting the timer. If it's possible to use attrition tactics to stall a capture long enough to get your main force on field, that's much different than if the bad guys get a full warmup cycle before the interruption begins. That kind of a system would require your opponent to murder all your links in a hurry, otherwise you continue to make progress even while he's on field.
If you're active in your systems and have good occupancy metrics you have between 30 and 40 minutes to respond to a reinforcement attempt. If this is a capture event you know when it starts 2 days in advance. In either case that's plenty of time to throw together a fleet and go kick faces in. |
Jenshae Chiroptera
1370
|
Posted - 2015.04.21 04:18:41 -
[453] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote:Blah. I am done going in circles with you. I think this plan for SOV is completely stupid. The proof will be in the pudding.
CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids
.
High Sec needs a stepping stone to other areas of space, where they can grow
Fozzie is treating a symptom.
|
Teddy J Rogers
Society of Mechanics Engineers and Gearheads
0
|
Posted - 2015.04.22 04:26:18 -
[454] - Quote
WhyTry1 wrote:Disclaimer : I am not affiliated with any power bloc therefore this is not a biased post. Also this is my main and not an alt Smile However I have been playing eve for many years and have spent a silly amount of time in nullsec. Just thought i would get that in there before the alt, troll, grr goons, grrr n3, grrr whatever posts come....
Anyway, I have been thinking about the fozziesov thing for sometime, much like many others i guess. The recent changes with jump fatigue etc have been good, and i support that, it was needed. The lets hold lots of space, make billions renting lots of regions and not even living in it, just because you could throw 100 supers at someone in minutes was becoming a joke. I still don't think one alliance should be able to hold one full region to be honest and i would like to see the verite map changed to be sov only map not a influence map as it can wrongly give information about how much space one owns. But i digress...Sorry...
On to fozziesov, great idea as a concept, will make more fights local, will make people think a little more about the space they want to own and defend, especially for the larger alliances. Now i assumed (and maybe wrongly) that this was also to let the little guys get a chance to harass and even hold sov. Which would be great! However my concern is how really easy it is, meaning the time it takes to cause disruption.
We seem to have gone from one extreme to the other. Now again you may thing hey well that helps the little guys, but does it? My worry is the purposeful setting up of large newbie alliances to effectively cause havoc in nullsec just to create content. This isn't just about PL horde, although its convienient that a group that was so elitist all of a sudden decided to create a newb alliance, but also the likes of Brave and Goons. Which can effectively sum up 100,200,300+ gangs just to roam nullsec and disrupt lots of systems in a night, then go back again the next night and the next. The smaller alliances have literally no chance at all, they can compete with that may pilots 'constantly' roaming about, disrupting everything in 20 minutes. Surely fozzie must of thought of this and again just as the high sec poco debacle, they create a game that obviously favours Goons, and Brave and now PL Horde. I worry this will just have the complete opposite effect where no one dares live, or invest in nullsec because of the constant harassment. For example you think about increasing mining yield but who in the right mind is going to have mining sessions with 300+ people coming about constantly? I think this could actually end up destroying nullsec I always wonder if CCP every look at the bigger picture rather than this inward thinking...
A group organized enough to regularly fly in 100 - 300 ships fleets is organized enough to take sovereignty in a few systems. But guess what happens next; they have the sov and need to defend it. They now have to split their fleet between home defense and troll/roamers. |
WhyTry1
Comply Or Die Retribution.
85
|
Posted - 2015.04.24 12:34:41 -
[455] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote:WhyTry1 wrote:Disclaimer : I am not affiliated with any power bloc therefore this is not a biased post. Also this is my main and not an alt Smile However I have been playing eve for many years and have spent a silly amount of time in nullsec. Just thought i would get that in there before the alt, troll, grr goons, grrr n3, grrr whatever posts come....
Anyway, I have been thinking about the fozziesov thing for sometime, much like many others i guess. The recent changes with jump fatigue etc have been good, and i support that, it was needed. The lets hold lots of space, make billions renting lots of regions and not even living in it, just because you could throw 100 supers at someone in minutes was becoming a joke. I still don't think one alliance should be able to hold one full region to be honest and i would like to see the verite map changed to be sov only map not a influence map as it can wrongly give information about how much space one owns. But i digress...Sorry... Everyone is biased, you're just not biased by affiliation you're biased by your lack of it. Those are maps created by third parties (aka, other players), they're not created by CCP. If you think the currently available maps don't present information accurately then feel free to create your own. At the end of the day though systems controlled doesn't really matter, and that info is clearly available on Dotlan as well. Flat saying someone can't own a region is unreasonable and not in keeping with CCP's balance practices. They may make it harder or discourage it, but they won't flat out say it's not possible. WhyTry1 wrote:On to fozziesov, great idea as a concept, will make more fights local, will make people think a little more about the space they want to own and defend, especially for the larger alliances. Now i assumed (and maybe wrongly) that this was also to let the little guys get a chance to harass and even hold sov. Which would be great! However my concern is how really easy it is, meaning the time it takes to cause disruption.
We seem to have gone from one extreme to the other. Now again you may thing hey well that helps the little guys, but does it? My worry is the purposeful setting up of large newbie alliances to effectively cause havoc in nullsec just to create content. This isn't just about PL horde, although its convienient that a group that was so elitist all of a sudden decided to create a newb alliance, but also the likes of Brave and Goons. Which can effectively sum up 100,200,300+ gangs just to roam nullsec and disrupt lots of systems in a night, then go back again the next night and the next. The smaller alliances have literally no chance at all, they can compete with that may pilots 'constantly' roaming about, disrupting everything in 20 minutes. Surely fozzie must of thought of this and again just as the high sec poco debacle, they create a game that obviously favours Goons, and Brave and now PL Horde. I worry this will just have the complete opposite effect where no one dares live, or invest in nullsec because of the constant harassment. For example you think about increasing mining yield but who in the right mind is going to have mining sessions with 300+ people coming about constantly? I think this could actually end up destroying nullsec I always wonder if CCP every look at the bigger picture rather than this inward thinking... The game obvious favors those who live in their space and are willing to defend it. There is no way to even eliminate the advantage of simply putting more bodies in ships than the other guy, that's just not possible while keeping the core gameplay of Eve intact. Trust me, CCP have definitely considered this sort of gameplay, if you don't believe me look at the recent interview with CCP Fozzie. The defenders have a massive advantage so maybe those 300 people are running around but if they're going to seriously try and take your Sov they need to split up for the Node events, and you don't need to split up as much as the defender, so you have one 100 man fleet, and they've got 5-6 50 man fleets. Who wins each of those little fleet engagements?
Why are you assuming that everyone who has sov willbe able to form 50 man fleets? they wont, most larger alliances cannot form a 50 man fleet! Im also talking about smaller alliances that this was supposed to help. Those 30,40,100 man alliances or corps that take some random system. Constantly having to defend it will be a nightmare thats a simple fact. Being constantly harassed gets tiresome. I mena look at Brave and PL, being constantly harassed ends up driving u mad and out..
|
WhyTry1
Comply Or Die Retribution.
85
|
Posted - 2015.04.24 12:36:41 -
[456] - Quote
Teddy J Rogers wrote:WhyTry1 wrote:Disclaimer : I am not affiliated with any power bloc therefore this is not a biased post. Also this is my main and not an alt Smile However I have been playing eve for many years and have spent a silly amount of time in nullsec. Just thought i would get that in there before the alt, troll, grr goons, grrr n3, grrr whatever posts come....
Anyway, I have been thinking about the fozziesov thing for sometime, much like many others i guess. The recent changes with jump fatigue etc have been good, and i support that, it was needed. The lets hold lots of space, make billions renting lots of regions and not even living in it, just because you could throw 100 supers at someone in minutes was becoming a joke. I still don't think one alliance should be able to hold one full region to be honest and i would like to see the verite map changed to be sov only map not a influence map as it can wrongly give information about how much space one owns. But i digress...Sorry...
On to fozziesov, great idea as a concept, will make more fights local, will make people think a little more about the space they want to own and defend, especially for the larger alliances. Now i assumed (and maybe wrongly) that this was also to let the little guys get a chance to harass and even hold sov. Which would be great! However my concern is how really easy it is, meaning the time it takes to cause disruption.
We seem to have gone from one extreme to the other. Now again you may thing hey well that helps the little guys, but does it? My worry is the purposeful setting up of large newbie alliances to effectively cause havoc in nullsec just to create content. This isn't just about PL horde, although its convienient that a group that was so elitist all of a sudden decided to create a newb alliance, but also the likes of Brave and Goons. Which can effectively sum up 100,200,300+ gangs just to roam nullsec and disrupt lots of systems in a night, then go back again the next night and the next. The smaller alliances have literally no chance at all, they can compete with that may pilots 'constantly' roaming about, disrupting everything in 20 minutes. Surely fozzie must of thought of this and again just as the high sec poco debacle, they create a game that obviously favours Goons, and Brave and now PL Horde. I worry this will just have the complete opposite effect where no one dares live, or invest in nullsec because of the constant harassment. For example you think about increasing mining yield but who in the right mind is going to have mining sessions with 300+ people coming about constantly? I think this could actually end up destroying nullsec I always wonder if CCP every look at the bigger picture rather than this inward thinking... A group organized enough to regularly fly in 100 - 300 ships fleets is organized enough to take sovereignty in a few systems. But guess what happens next; they have the sov and need to defend it. They now have to split their fleet between home defense and troll/roamers.
Its not about them defending or even taking sov, they dont care its purely about the' becuase we can' and we like to grief as mnay people as we can purely for the fun and hell of it. thats what it will be down to. Havent you played eve long enought to understand that? |
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans
2332
|
Posted - 2015.04.24 15:31:52 -
[457] - Quote
WhyTry1 wrote:Its not about them defending or even taking sov, they dont care its purely about the' becuase we can' and we like to grief as mnay people as we can purely for the fun and hell of it. thats what it will be down to. Havent you played eve long enought to understand that? as opposed to now where they only take sov if they need it? |
Cade Windstalker
Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra
415
|
Posted - 2015.04.24 19:28:20 -
[458] - Quote
WhyTry1 wrote:Why are you assuming that everyone who has sov willbe able to form 50 man fleets? they wont, most larger alliances cannot form a 50 man fleet! Im also talking about smaller alliances that this was supposed to help. Those 30,40,100 man alliances or corps that take some random system. Constantly having to defend it will be a nightmare thats a simple fact. Being constantly harassed gets tiresome. I mena look at Brave and PL, being constantly harassed ends up driving u mad and out..
Because if you can't field a decent sized fleet you shouldn't expect to be able to defend your sov against someone who can?
This is going to make it easier for smaller alliances, but by forcing the larger ones to contract. If they decide they want to go harass the smaller ones there's not a lot CCP can do to stop them, because a larger alliance will always have more people and resources.
No where does it say that this update is supposed to allow some dinky little 10-man corp to go out and tank Sov, that's an assumption by players, and IMO a poor one.
WhyTry1 wrote:Its not about them defending or even taking sov, they dont care its purely about the' becuase we can' and we like to grief as mnay people as we can purely for the fun and hell of it. thats what it will be down to. Havent you played eve long enought to understand that?
And what everyone is trying to say is that if they don't bother to take any sov then they'll have a hard time doing that consistently because the logistics involved will be prohibitive. If they do have Sov then there's something for people to harass and attack right back, meaning they're just as vulnerable to whatever they're doing as whoever they're doing it to is. |
Jenshae Chiroptera
1404
|
Posted - 2015.04.29 00:27:14 -
[459] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote:...No where does it say that this update is supposed to allow some dinky little 10-man corp to go out and take Sov, that's an assumption by players, and IMO a poor one..... So... about that ... CCP Fozzie wrote:... Our realistic goal for the new Sovereignty system is that a very small group of players in virtually any ship types should be able to completely conquer an undefended system with a few ~10-30 minute sessions spread across a few days.... ... which realistically means that you have to have people in almost every system guarding them.
"Sorry little Timmy, Jonny and Sammie you drew the short straws and have to stay in system WH0-C4R35 and make sure we don't have an enemy getting in our way. Do enjoy being griefed by every little tourist group and having to go out and fight every little pest for the foreseeable future. No, you can't come on any roams because you have to say home and watch all the holes in the walls for rats. No fun for you until we get some other new lame-o that wants to hang around long enough, doing this boring stuff; hoping to become one of the cool kids. Welcome to why Low Sec 2.0 that will be another empty waste land and suck."
CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids
.
High Sec needs a stepping stone to other areas of space, where they can grow
Fozzie is treating a symptom.
|
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans
2361
|
Posted - 2015.04.29 02:47:17 -
[460] - Quote
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:Cade Windstalker wrote:...No where does it say that this update is supposed to allow some dinky little 10-man corp to go out and take Sov, that's an assumption by players, and IMO a poor one..... So... about that ... CCP Fozzie wrote:... Our realistic goal for the new Sovereignty system is that a very small group of players in virtually any ship types should be able to completely conquer an undefended system with a few ~10-30 minute sessions spread across a few days.... ... which realistically means that you have to have people in almost every system guarding them. "Sorry little Timmy, Jonny and Sammie you drew the short straws and have to stay in system WH0-C4R35 and make sure we don't have an enemy getting in our way. Do enjoy being griefed by every little tourist group and having to go out and fight every little pest for the foreseeable future. No, you can't come on any roams because you have to say home and watch all the holes in the walls for rats. No fun for you until we get some other new lame-o that wants to hang around long enough, doing this boring stuff; hoping to become one of the cool kids. Welcome to why Low Sec 2.0 that will be another empty waste land and suck." Key words being "completely undefended". If you don't live there and use the space is it really of any consequence? You're already in system using it for :reasons: it's not like you have to sit at the structure and stare at it.
If you have to force someone to sit and guard a system because it's index is so low you'll never form a defense for the initial assault (successive timers give you 20-28 hours advance notice) then why are you holding that system again?
Also, less need to go on roams if people bring the content to you as often as you imagine they will. |
|
Rain6637
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
31299
|
Posted - 2015.04.29 02:50:01 -
[461] - Quote
I'm so tired of all this talk. I'm unsubbing.
from this thread.
Help, I can't download EVE
|
Jenshae Chiroptera
1405
|
Posted - 2015.04.29 04:27:38 -
[462] - Quote
Rowells wrote:... Also, less need to go on roams if people bring the content to you as often as you imagine they will. The day is 4 hours old and the region has had two and a half page of "content" during one of its more quiet time zones. I dock up and avoid the riff raff, joining fleets that look like they might matter. I am already thinking about where I want to be when people can come and start messing with structures. Probably not docked up with a bunch of miners, that don't believe they can overwhelm a solo guy never mind an escorting gang for the magic wand ship.
I have no interest in trying to form up a squad of people that are in system or nearby to then scan down and chase one guy with a cloak and his magic wand around a system. This sounds more tedious to me than structure grinding.
CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids
.
High Sec needs a stepping stone to other areas of space, where they can grow
Fozzie is treating a symptom.
|
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
6716
|
Posted - 2015.04.29 04:44:27 -
[463] - Quote
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:Rowells wrote:... Also, less need to go on roams if people bring the content to you as often as you imagine they will. The day is 4 hours old and the region has had two and a half page of "content" during one of its more quiet time zones. I dock up and avoid the riff raff, joining fleets that look like they might matter. I am already thinking about where I want to be when people can come and start messing with structures. Probably not docked up with a bunch of miners, that don't believe they can overwhelm a solo guy never mind an escorting gang for the magic wand ship. I have no interest in trying to form up a squad of people that are in system or nearby to then scan down and chase one guy with a cloak and his magic wand around a system. This sounds more tedious to me than structure grinding. Well then I guess you won't be trying to defend sov like that.
Op success
^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears.
Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
|
Jenshae Chiroptera
1407
|
Posted - 2015.04.29 05:18:27 -
[464] - Quote
I think the best tactics will be hell gate camping but that is more boring than mining ... or ... just don't bother defending at all.
Stage out of Low Sec or NPC Null Sec then let them flip the station. Then later go and annoy them instead. If they come out looking for a fight, deny them the fight, warp off, cloak up and wait.
They decide to do some ratting? Drop a bubble on the undock and kill them.
It is going to be far easier under Fozzie SOV to get people to give up and leave you alone if you make them try and defend this junk.
CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids
.
High Sec needs a stepping stone to other areas of space, where they can grow
Fozzie is treating a symptom.
|
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans
2362
|
Posted - 2015.04.29 06:02:24 -
[465] - Quote
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:I think the best tactics will be hell gate camping but that is more boring than mining ... or ... just don't bother defending at all. Neat thing is you don't have to do any of that. You can just sit and do things until the notification pops up and then you know he's bit the hook. No chance of warping off into the sunset when you are strapped to a structure.
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:Stage out of Low Sec or NPC Null Sec then let them flip the station. Then later go and annoy them instead. If they come out looking for a fight, deny them the fight, warp off, cloak up and wait.
They decide to do some ratting? Drop a bubble on the undock and kill them. Not sure how thats any different from current sov. I would argue its not even related to sov. Camping undocks and running away when the heat shows up is something you can do right now.
They're casting spells on the structure? Looks like they've put their ass on the table, so it's time to go for the kill, or wait until the next timer, if you're unlucky enough yo lose the fight.
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:It is going to be far easier under Fozzie SOV to get people to give up and leave you alone if you make them try and defend this junk. Oh dear, it looks like people are actually going to have to defend their space instead of waiting the better part of a week to batphone as many dudes as possible. Poor (former) sov owners. Maybe it's time to start condensing.
It will become quite difficult to troll someone's space when there are over a dozen people in system. |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
6716
|
Posted - 2015.04.29 06:10:31 -
[466] - Quote
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:I think the best tactics will be hell gate camping but that is more boring than mining ... or ... just don't bother defending at all.
Stage out of Low Sec or NPC Null Sec then let them flip the station. Then later go and annoy them instead. If they come out looking for a fight, deny them the fight, warp off, cloak up and wait.
They decide to do some ratting? Drop a bubble on the undock and kill them.
It is going to be far easier under Fozzie SOV to get people to give up and leave you alone if you make them try and defend this junk. It will probably be camping etc. That's the sort of thing that works in FW/plexsov
^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears.
Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
|
token trade alt
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
6
|
Posted - 2015.04.29 12:14:25 -
[467] - Quote
I don't really do null, but the concern in general seems to be over small, fast ships ducking in and out. Why not just make it like the other siege-y things and give the ship using the module a velocity penalty of -100%. Sure, you can get into a system easily on an interceptor, but you're not speed tanking anything if you can't move. Or, you know, give a static sig penalty and speed reduction so small ships are possible to hit before they inevitably warp out and pen15 in local. |
Jenshae Chiroptera
1422
|
Posted - 2015.04.30 01:42:43 -
[468] - Quote
token trade alt wrote:I don't really do null, but the concern in general seems to be over small, fast ships ducking in and out. Why not just make it like the other siege-y things and give the ship using the module a velocity penalty of -100%. Sure, you can get into a system easily on an interceptor, but you're not speed tanking anything if you can't move. Or, you know, give a static sig penalty and speed reduction so small ships are possible to hit before they inevitably warp out and pen15 in local. People doing their quiet ratting in a pocket or two, others are in the next region over providing content to a neighbour. A gang comes out of a worm hole into a string of travel systems, quietly puts up a heck of a lot of warp disruption bubbles then sets off timers just to grief people. By the time people get to the system, through all the bubbles the attackers are back on the other side of the now collapsed worm hole link.
However, spies now notify one larger entities that a string of systems have been flagged up, so they go and add their harrassment when the timers come due.
Rinse and repeat with variations until you have less space than you need for your ratters or you are fed up and staging out of Low Sec / NPC Nulll Sec.
CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids
.
High Sec needs a stepping stone to other areas of space, where they can grow
Fozzie is treating a symptom.
|
SFM Hobb3s
Wrecking Shots Black Legion.
294
|
Posted - 2015.04.30 14:57:58 -
[469] - Quote
token trade alt wrote:I don't really do null, but the concern in general seems to be over small, fast ships ducking in and out. Why not just make it like the other siege-y things and give the ship using the module a velocity penalty of -100%. Sure, you can get into a system easily on an interceptor, but you're not speed tanking anything if you can't move. Or, you know, give a static sig penalty and speed reduction so small ships are possible to hit before they inevitably warp out and pen15 in local.
You need to get used to the idea that this system is designed for people who like 'content'. Either the attacker gets 'content', or they get your space. Or both. Maybe with Lazors. |
Tengu Grib
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
1140
|
Posted - 2015.04.30 17:44:53 -
[470] - Quote
token trade alt wrote:I don't really do null, but the concern in general seems to be over small, fast ships ducking in and out. Why not just make it like the other siege-y things and give the ship using the module a velocity penalty of -100%. Sure, you can get into a system easily on an interceptor, but you're not speed tanking anything if you can't move. Or, you know, give a static sig penalty and speed reduction so small ships are possible to hit before they inevitably warp out and pen15 in local.
I feel like it's worth mentioning that the T2 link will only really be feasible on a cruiser and up, and the T1 link keeps your frighteningly close to the structure. Interceptors will be well within rapid light missile and light drone range, and with the mass increase they'll be easier to hit. Cruisers can sit out at extreme ranges, but only T3's have the nullification, which would make harassing with them expensive, and they can easily be chased down by microwarping frigates to provide a nice warpin.
Any other ship is vulnerable to warp disruption bubbles and therefore gate camps protecting your borders should keep you at least aware of where threats are.
Wormholes obviously provide a path around that, but that's just more content for everyone involved.
I really like what I've read here and I think I might return to 0.0 to participate in sov warfare once more. |
|
Daenika
MMO-Mechanics.com
167
|
Posted - 2015.04.30 19:06:40 -
[471] - Quote
ECM is going to be stupidly powerful against these suckers. If I'm running 3 ECMs with only a 5% jam chance each (example, my Falcon against a sensor strength ~300, or an unbonused ECM against 72-90 strength on-racial or 24-30 off-racial, depending on skill in Signal Dispersion), which is really easy to reach, I'd have a 60% chance of jamming a target at least once in a 2 minutes period.
And that's with only 3 ECMs with a 5% jam chance each. In a more realistic scenario (say, a Falcon with a full rack of 6 on-racial jams from a depot and Information booster links, ~17 jam strength per jammer) against a local ECCM'd HAC (~50 strength), I'd have a 99.99997% (yes, really) chance of jamming him at least once in that 2 minute warm-up period. Alternatively, I could just wait for him to finish the warm-up, then start jamming, and still have a 99.3% chance of jamming him within the first 20 seconds of his actual progress cycle. Now he spent 4 minutes (and 2 cycles of fuel) to gain maybe 1% progress (~5 seconds, since there's about a 95% probability of a jam on the first cycle) toward capture of the target.
Unless they block external EWAR (jams and damps, not neuts), ECM is going to be essentially a hard counter to these. I mean, even without warfare links, a pair of Falcons could decloak, lock, jam, and warp to safe in under 12 seconds, from 90km away (1 falloff out of optimal = 50% "miss" chance), and have a 95% probability of disrupting the link with essentially no chance of reprisal. |
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans
2363
|
Posted - 2015.04.30 19:36:13 -
[472] - Quote
Daenika wrote:ECM is going to be stupidly powerful against these suckers. If I'm running 3 ECMs with only a 5% jam chance each (example, my Falcon against a sensor strength ~300, or an unbonused ECM against 72-90 strength on-racial or 24-30 off-racial, depending on skill in Signal Dispersion), which is really easy to reach, I'd have a 60% chance of jamming a target at least once in a 2 minutes period.
And that's with only 3 ECMs with a 5% jam chance each. In a more realistic scenario (say, a Falcon with a full rack of 6 on-racial jams from a depot and Information booster links, ~17 jam strength per jammer) against a local ECCM'd HAC (~50 strength), I'd have a 99.99997% (yes, really) chance of jamming him at least once in that 2 minute warm-up period. Alternatively, I could just wait for him to finish the warm-up, then start jamming, and still have a 99.3% chance of jamming him within the first 20 seconds of his actual progress cycle. Now he spent 4 minutes (and 2 cycles of fuel) to gain maybe 1% progress (~5 seconds, since there's about a 95% probability of a jam on the first cycle) toward capture of the target.
Unless they block external EWAR (jams and damps, not neuts), ECM is going to be essentially a hard counter to these. I mean, even without warfare links, a pair of Falcons could decloak, lock, jam, and warp to safe in under 12 seconds, from 90km away (1 falloff out of optimal = 50% "miss" chance), and have a 95% probability of disrupting the link with essentially no chance of reprisal. Ewar works two ways, so having a maulus handy would definitely make it less of an issue off the bat. |
Daenika
MMO-Mechanics.com
167
|
Posted - 2015.05.01 05:18:59 -
[473] - Quote
Quote:Ewar works two ways, so having a maulus handy would definitely make it less of an issue off the bat.
As usual, damps are a hard counter to jam sniping. However, a Maulus by default only has an 80km lock range, and even at perfect skills only reduces the lock range of a Falcon to about 75km with a single damp. If a pair of Falcons decloak, the Maulus will almost certainly lock them before they lock the Entosis ship, but only if the Falcons are in range (and they can jam reasonable effectively out to even 100-110km). If the Falcons are in close enough for the Maulus to damp, a single damp won't do the trick anyway, and the Maulus can only carry 3 (plus prop mod).
And that's with perfect damping skills. A Keres would have a better time of it, of course, as would either of the Recons, but the point remains. I'm not saying that ECM is without counter, but the decloak-jam-warp concept using a gang of 1-3 Falcons can basically completely block the Entosis with no need to control the grid, without a very specific counter being deployed just to block that sort of attack. Would seem to me that the link should carry with it EWAR immunity. |
Wanda Fayne
Gurlz with Gunz
83
|
Posted - 2015.05.01 06:10:13 -
[474] - Quote
Daenika wrote:Quote:Ewar works two ways, so having a maulus handy would definitely make it less of an issue off the bat. As usual, damps are a hard counter to jam sniping. However, a Maulus by default only has an 80km lock range, and even at perfect skills only reduces the lock range of a Falcon to about 75km with a single damp. If a pair of Falcons decloak, the Maulus will almost certainly lock them before they lock the Entosis ship, but only if the Falcons are in range (and they can jam reasonable effectively out to even 100-110km). If the Falcons are in close enough for the Maulus to damp, a single damp won't do the trick anyway, and the Maulus can only carry 3 (plus prop mod). And that's with perfect damping skills. A Keres would have a better time of it, of course, as would either of the Recons, but the point remains. I'm not saying that ECM is without counter, but the decloak-jam-warp concept using a gang of 1-3 Falcons can basically completely block the Entosis with no need to control the grid, without a very specific counter being deployed just to block that sort of attack. Would seem to me that the link should carry with it EWAR immunity.
It sounds like your ECM opposition is specifically to thwart the entosis ship. It would logically fall upon the entosis force to anticipate different defensive strategies and include these in their own strategies. This is sound gameplay and quite possible. The defender should have full use of their ship abilities; ewar should be a valid mechanic to counter the entosis link by breaking the target lock of the ship using it.
Further, could this ewar immunity granted to the entosis-enabled ship not be exploitable in other scenarios? |
Iroquoiss Pliskin
Hedion University Amarr Empire
481
|
Posted - 2015.05.01 06:37:18 -
[475] - Quote
Daenika wrote:ECM is going to be stupidly powerful against these suckers. If I'm running 3 ECMs with only a 5% jam chance each (example, my Falcon against a sensor strength ~300, or an unbonused ECM against 72-90 strength on-racial or 24-30 off-racial, depending on skill in Signal Dispersion), which is really easy to reach, I'd have a 60% chance of jamming a target at least once in a 2 minutes period.
And that's with only 3 ECMs with a 5% jam chance each. In a more realistic scenario (say, a Falcon with a full rack of 6 on-racial jams from a depot and Information booster links, ~17 jam strength per jammer) against a local ECCM'd HAC (~50 strength), I'd have a 99.99997% (yes, really) chance of jamming him at least once in that 2 minute warm-up period. Alternatively, I could just wait for him to finish the warm-up, then start jamming, and still have a 99.3% chance of jamming him within the first 20 seconds of his actual progress cycle. Now he spent 4 minutes (and 2 cycles of fuel) to gain maybe 1% progress (~5 seconds, since there's about a 95% probability of a jam on the first cycle) toward capture of the target.
Unless they block external EWAR (jams and damps, not neuts), ECM is going to be essentially a hard counter to these. I mean, even without warfare links, a pair of Falcons could decloak, lock, jam, and warp to safe in under 12 seconds, from 90km away (1 falloff out of optimal = 50% "miss" chance), and have a 95% probability of disrupting the link with essentially no chance of reprisal.
You like Jammin', don't you.
// Turret-Equivalent of the Rapid ML Concept
//
Cruisers Online - [Damage done in PvP by Shiptype]
|
Uncle Dunk
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
0
|
Posted - 2015.05.01 09:57:12 -
[476] - Quote
I propose a very small change to fozziesov that in my view will greatly benefit the sovsystem. It is a look at the capture mechanic. So before you get out your pitchforks and tie me to the front of your leet slicer, hear me out. I feel there is one fatal flaw in the Fozziesov model that takes it in the wrong direction. You probably overlooked this part as you were skimming to the entosis link:
"If nobody shows up to defend or attack a capture event, or if the involved parties are perfectly matched, the event can go on indefinitely" ~Fozziesov
So let's say 1 guy starts the capture mechanic and successfully reinforces a structure. 48 hours later the alliance has to show up for the capture mechanic if they want to keep their sov. Now let's set aside why we would want sov and just assume that we would like to keep our Name on the MapGäó. I would have to send out guys to capture the command nodes when the structure comes out of reinforce.
This guy who initiated the capture mechanic just made 5 members in my alliance waste at least 30min (~fozziesov) getting a system back that we supposedly already owned, without any commitment on his part aside from successfully reinforcing my structure 48 hours prior. No fights are guaranteed when my alliance members spend time recapturing, no fun. Even the elusive "professional miner" that apparently gets a hard-on lazoring things will not find minerals in his hold, which I assume to be tiny orgasms for them.
So shut up and tell me your idea...
If the first five command nodes are not captured within a timeframe the same as the primetime-window (so hopefully determined by indices or not-so hopefully the original 4 hours), the system resets to the defender. So the reset will never be in the defenders prime time, but you can still capture the structure quickly if you want it as an attacker. This also opens up a whole new level of meta. Firstly, defenders have more flexibility when they are not being forced to capture command nodes at any point.
Secondly, if an attack is thought to be a "troll-reinforce" it could turn out to be covering fo an actual incoming attack by a bigger entity. Instead of the defenders forcibly being there and calling for reinforcements, they could have chosen to ignore the spawn of the nodes entirely and be caught off-guard. There will be panic all around, but you won't have to alarmclock to experience this panic as it is still your primetime(-ish). It will be glorious.
This is of course a buff for the defender, or is it? It is a buff for the defender in case the attacker is not actually attacking, so should you even be forced to defend then? It is a change that's skips the whole mechanic that is suppose to encourage fighting and keep things interesting, when there is just the well-thought-of, but boring in itself, sovmechanic and no fight taking place.
Please tell me why my idea is stupid. |
Daenika
MMO-Mechanics.com
169
|
Posted - 2015.05.01 15:57:12 -
[477] - Quote
Quote:It sounds like your ECM opposition is specifically to thwart the entosis ship. It would logically fall upon the entosis force to anticipate different defensive strategies and include these in their own strategies. This is sound gameplay and quite possible. The defender should have full use of their ship abilities; ewar should be a valid mechanic to counter the entosis link by breaking the target lock of the ship using it.
The only problem I have with it is that the Entosis Link is stuck in the "on" state until it finishes cycling. If you jam the ship 10 seconds in, they are still stuck there for another 2 or 5 minutes, unable to warp, not affecting the capture target (with another 2/5 minute warm-up before they can), with a penalty to agility and no possible remote assistance. Just from one simple jam. No other module in the game has that much penalty from a jam. The only other module in the game that anchors you in place that doesn't provide EWAR immunity is using the bubble on a HIC, and that doesn't require a target. Siege and Triage both make you immune to EWAR (and remote assistance), and Titans are simply naturally immune to it (since their DD anchors).
I see EWAR immunity as the simplest option, tbh. The other option is to make a successful jam instantly end the cycle, but that's exploitable in the other direction (friendly jams to quickly end a cycle and save the link ship). EWAR immunity would only be exploitable insofar as fleets near one of those modules could all fit and activate Entosis Links to block hostile EWAR, but since that also blocks friendly assistance, prevents a fair amount of tactical movement, and requires either a fairly significant chunk of cap and PG or requires the target to remain in a fairly limited range of the Entosis targe, I don't really see this as much of an exploit. It's also worth noting that it's a very valid tactic to have many ships activate links on the target as a way of increasing the number of ships that need to be killed to shut down progress, and reducing the impacting of losing any single Link ship. Logi could potentially use it to prevent EWAR, but the cap/PG penalty or the range restriction (not to mention the block on incoming cap transfers!) would end up being painful, as would the block on warping.
I just seems the best of all options to block EWAR with the link active. The alternative of letting a single ECM completely screw a person out of 4-10 minutes of time (since a jam within the first 5-10 seconds of the second cycle is essentially just as effective as jamming during the first) is just too powerful.
And I say that as someone who preferentially flies Falcons as my standard cloaky and Blops ship. I will admit that part of this is self serving, however: I foresee the potency of ECM on these links causing a massive increase to the already annoyingly large outcry against ECM. I'm trying to address the issue before the solution becomes "nerf ECM into the ground".
Iroquoiss Pliskin wrote:You like Jammin', don't you.
It's my dearest love, actually (seriously, 10.7m SPs in Electronics) |
Jenshae Chiroptera
1442
|
Posted - 2015.05.02 01:03:00 -
[478] - Quote
What is stopping a Falcon from waving a magic wand and jamming the defenders?
CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids
.
High Sec needs a stepping stone to other areas of space, where they can grow
Fozzie is treating a symptom.
|
Wanda Fayne
Gurlz with Gunz
86
|
Posted - 2015.05.02 02:26:39 -
[479] - Quote
Daenika wrote: I just seems the best of all options to block EWAR with the link active. The alternative of letting a single ECM completely screw a person out of 4-10 minutes of time (since a jam within the first 5-10 seconds of the second cycle is essentially just as effective as jamming during the first) is just too powerful.
And I say that as someone who preferentially flies Falcons as my standard cloaky and Blops ship. I will admit that part of this is self serving, however: I foresee the potency of ECM on these links causing a massive increase to the already annoyingly large outcry against ECM. I'm trying to address the issue before the solution becomes "nerf ECM into the ground".
I see your points. But still think that it goes too far in what you propose.
As stated in the design goals: "The Entosis Link itself should have the minimum possible effect on what ships and tactics players can choose."
Now, lets say I escort my entosis ship with, hmmm, 2 or 3 Keres with a sebo on each. We will most likely lock and nullify your Falcons tactic with little difficulty. This was just my first thought, I have no doubt other counters would be readily applied as well.
If the entosis-enable ship had a natural resistance to EWAR like a Marauder for example, then that would be conferred by the ship. The link itself should not have that effect on the ship in my opinion. |
Daenika
MMO-Mechanics.com
169
|
Posted - 2015.05.02 14:07:00 -
[480] - Quote
Wanda Fayne wrote:I see your points. But still think that it goes too far in what you propose.
As stated in the design goals: "The Entosis Link itself should have the minimum possible effect on what ships and tactics players can choose."
Now, lets say I escort my entosis ship with, hmmm, 2 or 3 Keres with a sebo on each. We will most likely lock and nullify your Falcons tactic with little difficulty. This was just my first thought, I have no doubt other counters would be readily applied as well.
If the entosis-enable ship had a natural resistance to EWAR like a Marauder for example, then that would be conferred by the ship. The link itself should not have that effect on the ship in my opinion.
Definitely valid, though Keres can be instablapped from extremely long range by a couple Naga (or a bombing run). I just still feel the penalty is too large for the commitment of effort.
Perhaps make it so that losing targeting doesn't instantly kill the Link, but instead only kills it if they fail to relock the target node by the time the link finishes? That would put a much narrower time period in which an ECM would ruin the link (only in the *last* 20 seconds, so they don't have to sit there for up to five minutes after being jammed), and also makes ECM->res damp a *very* valid tactic (and they requires staying on grid).
Also worth noting that damps have only a 45km optimal (+90km falloff) at perfect skills in a Keres, so at 90km they have a ~15% miss chance already, and all the Falcons need is a single successful jam.
Quote:What is stopping a Falcon from waving a magic wand and jamming the defenders?
Because ECMs only last 20 seconds? The issue is that a single successful jam on the Entosis ship completely destroys that entire Entosis cycle without actually ending the cycle time. It's a punishment disproportionate to the commitment by the EWAR ship. |
|
Wanda Fayne
Gurlz with Gunz
86
|
Posted - 2015.05.02 16:43:53 -
[481] - Quote
Daenika wrote:The issue is that a single successful jam on the Entosis ship completely destroys that entire Entosis cycle without actually ending the cycle time. It's a punishment disproportionate to the commitment by the EWAR ship.
This is your issue. How do you fix this, without it being abused by the attacker to "bail out" of an entosis cycle?
Quote:Perhaps make it so that losing targeting doesn't instantly kill the Link, but instead only kills it if they fail to relock the target node by the time the link finishes?
This is a better solution. The effect of the entosis link on the timer must be suspended as well while target lock is lost. It does fall within the design goals
|
Newt BlackCompany
BlackCompany Personal Corp
43
|
Posted - 2015.05.08 10:26:51 -
[482] - Quote
Can the Entosis link be used to target a POS?
It'd be a great way to eliminate all those dead sticks out there, but could have some unintended consequences...
|
Ransu Asanari
Powder and Ball Alchemists Union Mordus Angels
225
|
Posted - 2015.05.08 21:39:54 -
[483] - Quote
One thing I'd like to see a clarification on, which multiple people have discussed, is the role and effectiveness of EWAR against Entosis mechanics - both during the warmup cycle, and post-warmup cycles.
From the op post:
Quote:
- 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
- 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
So during the warmup cycle, you must maintain a lock on the structure. That sounds reasonable. Because you can't receive remote assistance, you can't receive Remote Sensor Boosters to increase range when using the T2, or Remote ECCM to counter ECM jamming attempts. This means EWAR can be used against you to break your lock and you would have to fit your own countermeasures on your ship, such as ECCM or Sensor Boosters. There are both mid and low slot modules for these, so it's fairly balanced to take this into consideration, although armor setups will have a slight advantage as the midslot versions have a higher bonus.
So far so good. Where I see a concern is the first point - "Requires a target lock on the structure to have any impact". If this applies post-warmup, you still need to maintain a lock on the structure to continue Entosis, this means one lucky jam will reset all progress and you will have to re-lock the target and start the warmup cycle over again. If all progress can be reset by one lucky jam, that seems overpowered and an easy strategy to abuse.
Can we confirm if post-warmup cycle, the target lock on the structure is still required to exert influence on the structure? I would prefer to see that once you are successfully "linked" to the structure by completing the warmup cycle, that "all that matters is that your module stays active".
This gives a window to disrupt any new Entosis attempts during the warm-up cycle with EWAR, but if the warmup cycle completes successfully, the strategy then changes to pressuring the linked ship with enough damage to voluntarily end the Entosis cycle so it can warp off or receive remote assistance, or risk being destroyed before ending cycle. If the ship does come out of Entosis to receive reps, it is then vulnerable again to EWAR as it goes through the new warmup cycle. This seems fairly balanced to me.
Having the target lock be irrelvant after warmup also makes refitting during an Entosis attempt an interesting dynamic. After the warmup stage completes, refitting EWAR countermeasure modules for more tank could be favorable. If this is something that could be abused, we may want to look at disabling refitting while an Entosis module is active.
The other slim use case I was thinking about was using Mauraders in Bastion Mode to initiate the warmup cycle. Since they are immune to EWAR while in Bastion Mode and receive increased tank for 60 seconds, the survivability of completing a 2x Bastion Mode Cycle with a T2 Entosis Module would be fairly high without enough DPS on field to pressure the battleship. Although not a common occurrence, Remote ECCM Burst from Supercaps can still disable a target lock on targets normally immune to EWAR.
Just some other things to think about when considering the role of EWAR in the Entosis mechanics.
Powder and Ball Alchemists Union - "Turning Lead into Gold since 2008"
|
Wanda Fayne
Gurlz with Gunz
89
|
Posted - 2015.05.08 23:39:48 -
[484] - Quote
Ransu Asanari wrote:One thing I'd like to see a clarification on, which multiple people have discussed, is the role and effectiveness of EWAR against Entosis mechanics - both during the warmup cycle, and post-warmup cycles. From the op post: Quote:
- 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
- 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
So during the warmup cycle, you must maintain a lock on the structure. That sounds reasonable. Because you can't receive remote assistance, you can't receive Remote Sensor Boosters to increase range when using the T2, or Remote ECCM to counter ECM jamming attempts. This means EWAR can be used against you to break your lock and you would have to fit your own countermeasures on your ship, such as ECCM or Sensor Boosters. There are both mid and low slot modules for these, so it's fairly balanced to take this into consideration, although armor setups will have a slight advantage as the midslot versions have a higher bonus. So far so good. Where I see a concern is the first point - "Requires a target lock on the structure to have any impact". If this applies post-warmup, you still need to maintain a lock on the structure to continue Entosis, this means one lucky jam will reset all progress and you will have to re-lock the target and start the warmup cycle over again. If all progress can be reset by one lucky jam, that seems overpowered and an easy strategy to abuse. Can we confirm if post-warmup cycle, the target lock on the structure is still required to exert influence on the structure? I would prefer to see that once you are successfully "linked" to the structure by completing the warmup cycle, that " all that matters is that your module stays active". This would mean that all the ship with the Entosis module needs to do after the warmup cycle is stay on grid within range of the structure for the module to continue to cycle, and tank any incoming damage without being able to receive remote assistance. This gives a window to disrupt any new Entosis attempts during the warm-up cycle with EWAR, but if the warmup cycle completes successfully, the strategy then changes to pressuring the linked ship with enough damage to voluntarily end the Entosis cycle so it can warp off or receive remote assistance, or risk being destroyed before ending cycle. If the ship does come out of Entosis to receive reps, it is then vulnerable again to EWAR as it goes through the new warmup cycle. This seems fairly balanced to me. Having the target lock be irrelvant after warmup also makes refitting during an Entosis attempt an interesting dynamic. After the warmup stage completes, refitting EWAR countermeasure modules for more tank could be favorable. If this is something that could be abused, we may want to look at disabling refitting while an Entosis module is active. The other slim use case I was thinking about was using Mauraders in Bastion Mode to initiate the warmup cycle. Since they are immune to EWAR while in Bastion Mode and receive increased tank for 60 seconds, the survivability of completing a 2x Bastion Mode Cycle with a T2 Entosis Module would be fairly high without enough DPS on field to pressure the battleship. Although not a common occurrence, Remote ECCM Burst from Supercaps can still disable a target lock on targets normally immune to EWAR. Just some other things to think about when considering the role of EWAR in the Entosis mechanics.
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. |
FT Diomedes
The Graduates Get Off My Lawn
949
|
Posted - 2015.05.09 04:03:16 -
[485] - Quote
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.
The Greatest Ship Ever. Credit to Shahfluffers.
|
Ransu Asanari
Powder and Ball Alchemists Union Mordus Angels
225
|
Posted - 2015.05.09 07:52:11 -
[486] - Quote
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.
Powder and Ball Alchemists Union - "Turning Lead into Gold since 2008"
|
fuzyfoxkit Omanid
Mindstar Technology Get Off My Lawn
0
|
Posted - 2015.05.09 15:17:30 -
[487] - Quote
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
Gurlz with Gunz
89
|
Posted - 2015.05.09 16:22:31 -
[488] - Quote
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... |
Toggl3
Wormhole.
0
|
Posted - 2015.05.14 22:21:48 -
[489] - Quote
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 Furia.
3
|
Posted - 2015.05.24 07:46:42 -
[490] - Quote
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?
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 .. 17 :: [one page] |