Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 50 60 70 .. 76 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 9 post(s) |
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
12312
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 13:13:36 -
[1] - Quote
Hello folks. I'm making this discussion thread to give you all a closer look at our design philosophy for the Entosis Link mechanics and the way we plan to balance the module.
We've been seeing quite a bit of concern from parts of the community that the Entosis Link mechanics will push people to pure evasion fits, the so called trollceptors. It goes without saying that we do not want the sov war meta turn into nothing but sensor boosting Interceptors, but we have plenty of time and tools to help ensure that scenario doesn't occur.
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. 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.
All in all, I want to make it very clear that we are going to make adjustments to the Entosis Link in order to get the best possible gameplay and to match these goals as well as possible. If we clearly see a situation emerging where any pure evasion tactics are going to become dominant, we will make changes to the Entosis Link to bring the gameplay back into balance. We expect that there will be many changes and tweaks to the Entosis Link module before launch, and more tweaks made after launch as needed. We have all of the numerous tools of EVE module balance at our disposal and everything is on the table. We can use everything from module price, range, fittings, cap use, mass penalties, ship restrictions, speed limits and many many more. We intend to use as few of these dials as possible and use the lightest touch possible, but we do have the tools we need to reach these goals.
We would like this thread to become a place of discussion around the Entosis Link mechanics, the ships that you expect to use them on, and the tactics you foresee becoming popular. What issues do you foresee popping up? How do you think these goals should be adjusted or refocused? Which of the many module balance dials do you think would be the most intuitive?
Please keep discussion calm and reasonable. Remember that even though we're not making knee-jerk reactions, we are definitely listening and working to get this balance right.
Thanks -Fozzie
Game Designer | Team Five-0
https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie
http://www.twitch.tv/ccp_fozzie/
|
|
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
864
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 13:19:18 -
[2] - Quote
Trollceptors are a myth do not buy it. They'll be shattered by missile boats. |
Amyclas Amatin
SUNDERING Goonswarm Federation
632
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 13:19:45 -
[3] - Quote
Wishful thinking. If Entosis links flip/destroy structures, they will be the center of our doctrines. We play to win.
Quote: 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.
Put it this way. If sending 500 suicide alts to Entosis something is a viable strategy, we will do it.
For more information on the New Order of High-Sec, please visit: http://www.minerbumping.com/
Remember that whenever you have a bad day in EVE, the correct reponse is "Thank you CCP, may I please have another?"
|
Gorski Car
505
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 13:21:25 -
[4] - Quote
There are so many things you can do to counter trollceptors I cant help but think that this is a vocal minority overreacting and creating doomsday scenarios.
Collect this post
|
Dave Stark
7407
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 13:22:26 -
[5] - Quote
Amyclas Amatin wrote:Wishful thinking. If Entosis links flip/destroy structures, they will be the center of our doctrines. We play to win.
so basically anything without a utility high is already a no-go for your fleet doctrines? (i assume the ectoplasm link still requires a high slot) |
Amyclas Amatin
SUNDERING Goonswarm Federation
632
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 13:23:41 -
[6] - Quote
Dave Stark wrote:Amyclas Amatin wrote:Wishful thinking. If Entosis links flip/destroy structures, they will be the center of our doctrines. We play to win. so basically anything without a utility high is already a no-go for your fleet doctrines? (i assume the ectoplasm link still requires a high slot)
Addendum - Ishtars online.
For more information on the New Order of High-Sec, please visit: http://www.minerbumping.com/
Remember that whenever you have a bad day in EVE, the correct reponse is "Thank you CCP, may I please have another?"
|
Sougiro Seta
We are not bad. Just unlucky Goonswarm Federation
13
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 13:23:59 -
[7] - Quote
Fozzieclaws clearly showed the community this past days that ceptors are not broken and that they're easy to catch. |
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
12055
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 13:29:22 -
[8] - Quote
Quote:As much as possible, the Entosis Link capture progress should reflect which group has effective military control of the grid.
This will not happen if frigates are allowed to use it.
Quote:The optimal strategy for fighting over a location with the Entosis Link should be to gain effective control of the grid.
Then make it disable prop mods as well, so people can't ***** out and kite their way through a sov capture.
If their intent to attack the sov in a given system is genuine and not just trolling, then they'll have no problem fighting for control of the grid, instead of kiting until the other guy dies of boredom.
One or both of those things should be implemented, if you are actually serious about making it matter who has control of the grid. Otherwise it will be a trolling contest.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Elenahina
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
187
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 13:29:59 -
[9] - Quote
Amyclas Amatin wrote:Dave Stark wrote:Amyclas Amatin wrote:Wishful thinking. If Entosis links flip/destroy structures, they will be the center of our doctrines. We play to win. so basically anything without a utility high is already a no-go for your fleet doctrines? (i assume the ectoplasm link still requires a high slot) Addendum - Ishtars online.
So nothing of importance will have changed. Good to know.
Agony Unleashed is Recruiting - Small Gang PvP in Null Sec
|
EvilweaselFinance
BUTTECORP INC Goonswarm Federation
586
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 13:31:05 -
[10] - Quote
Trollceptors fundamentally don't fit the "effective control of the grid" argument. The things that can hit an orbiting snaked-out interceptor are few and far between and require very specific fits to counter, allowing a trollceptor to easily keep a link alive without effective control of the grid. This also forces specific metas, in opposition to the view that they should not affect the meta - you have to be able to blap interceptors in your fleet composition.
They also simply allow you to evade committing anything to a fight, and if you're attacking sov at the very least you should be risking a single ship. |
|
Promiscuous Female
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
577
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 13:31:37 -
[11] - Quote
so, no changes are going to be made then
right, thanks for the update
invest in maledictions |
Anya Solette
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
30
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 13:31:47 -
[12] - Quote
End of the day, the weak alliances will fall, and GSF will still be standing towering over the wreckage, gloating over the corpses of the people who were sure that "This change will **** the goonies good lol" |
Ilaister
Absolutely Certain
165
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 13:31:59 -
[13] - Quote
While brawling doctrines would be far from optimal I think the HIC will see a fair bit of use as an Entosis platform from smaller groups.
Bubble up to hopefully catch reinforcements you're not getting reps anyway. |
Dave Stark
7409
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 13:32:31 -
[14] - Quote
EvilweaselFinance wrote:Trollceptors fundamentally don't fit the "effective control of the grid" argument. The things that can hit an orbiting snaked-out interceptor are few and far between and require very specific fits to counter, allowing a trollceptor to easily keep a link alive without effective control of the grid. This also forces specific metas, in opposition to the view that they should not affect the meta - you have to be able to blap interceptors in your fleet composition.
They also simply allow you to evade committing anything to a fight, and if you're attacking sov at the very least you should be risking a single ship.
fortunately you don't have to hit a trollceptor to stop it, just activate your own link. |
Aralyn Cormallen
Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation
834
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 13:32:51 -
[15] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:We can use everything from module price...
Please, please, learn from experience. Price is not a sensible balance mechanic in any way.
|
Amyclas Amatin
SUNDERING Goonswarm Federation
632
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 13:33:01 -
[16] - Quote
Will Entosis links do anything to ship velocity?
If they don't, even if you don't allow frigates to fit them, we will troll in orthruses.
For more information on the New Order of High-Sec, please visit: http://www.minerbumping.com/
Remember that whenever you have a bad day in EVE, the correct reponse is "Thank you CCP, may I please have another?"
|
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
864
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 13:34:30 -
[17] - Quote
EvilweaselFinance wrote:Trollceptors fundamentally don't fit the "effective control of the grid" argument. The things that can hit an orbiting snaked-out interceptor are few and far between and require very specific fits to counter, allowing a trollceptor to easily keep a link alive without effective control of the grid. This also forces specific metas, in opposition to the view that they should not affect the meta - you have to be able to blap interceptors in your fleet composition.
They also simply allow you to evade committing anything to a fight, and if you're attacking sov at the very least you should be risking a single ship.
A 100m isk, 2k EHP ship with a billion isk pod?
I'm sure they'll be ten-a-penny |
colera deldios
301
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 13:34:58 -
[18] - Quote
Reserved so I can criticize you when I get home from work. |
Tineoidea Asanari
Heeresversuchsanstalt The Bastion
40
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 13:36:43 -
[19] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Hello folks. I'm making this discussion thread to give you all a closer look at our design philosophy for the Entosis Link mechanics and the way we plan to balance the module.
We've been seeing quite a bit of concern from parts of the community that the Entosis Link mechanics will push people to pure evasion fits, the so called trollceptors. It goes without saying that we do not want the sov war meta turn into nothing but sensor boosting Interceptors, but we have plenty of time and tools to help ensure that scenario doesn't occur.
I have to wonder, how do you want to do this if you plan to make the module usable by nearly every ship in the game? We will always try to find a way to abuse a mechanic (even if we dont like it because if we dont use it, our enemies will) and a module with 250 km of range fitable by nearly every ship in the game is a good way to give us alot of options to abuse this.
Your argument that you dont want to influence the nullsec metas by restricting the sovlaser to a specific shipclass is a good one and I totally agree with that. Maybe the best solution would be by creating a special ship (made by Concord?) that is designed to use the sovlaser and the only one capable of doing that. You could even create different classes of that shiptype and it will still be much easier to balance as you only have to look at the options one or a few ships give and not every ship you created in the past 12 years. |
Jaro Essa
Dahkur Forge
13
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 13:37:22 -
[20] - Quote
EvilweaselFinance wrote:Trollceptors fundamentally don't fit the "effective control of the grid" argument. The things that can hit an orbiting snaked-out interceptor are few and far between and require very specific fits to counter, allowing a trollceptor to easily keep a link alive without effective control of the grid. You won't have to kill the interceptor. With your own entosis link active on the structure or command node, no progress can be made towards the timer. Though, if you can't kill one interceptor, why should you have sov?
EvilweaselFinance wrote:This also forces specific metas, in opposition to the view that they should not affect the meta - you have to be able to blap interceptors in your fleet composition. You bring whatever you think will beat what the other guys brought, they having brought what they think will beat what you might bring. That's the very definition of the metagame.
Tineoidea Asanari wrote:...a module with 250 km of range fitable by nearly every ship in the game is a good way to give us alot of options to abuse this. The T2 module will have 250 km max range, but in practice it will be limited by the lock range of the ship it is fitted to. Bring damps. |
|
Ned Thomas
Signal Cartel EvE-Scout Enclave
1084
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 13:37:30 -
[21] - Quote
I've seen a few people using Cyno's as a placeholder for E-links when theorycrfting and I kinda like that as a starting point for fitting requirements. Just to throw that out there.
Don't get lost alone - Join Signal Cartel, New Eden's premier haven for explorers!
Onward to Thera with Eve Scout
|
Elenahina
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
187
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 13:37:39 -
[22] - Quote
Aralyn Cormallen wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:We can use everything from module price... Please, please, learn from experience. Price is not a sensible balance mechanic in any way.
*cough cough* supercaps online *cough*
Agony Unleashed is Recruiting - Small Gang PvP in Null Sec
|
Borachon
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
25
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 13:37:55 -
[23] - Quote
The biggest concern with trollceptors seems to be the extreme long range on T2 entosis links. I understand wanting a long-range link for things like sniper doctrines, but I don't see why you're doing this with the T1/T2 distinction.
Instead, why not have S/M/L/XL entosis links with ranges similar to S/M/L/XL long range weapons? The T1/T2 variants would then mostly impact cycle times. This gives you more room to use the module tools at your disposal to tweak usage. It does potentially complicate the loot table of drifter battleships, however. |
Arkon Olacar
Bearded BattleBears Brave Collective
492
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 13:38:25 -
[24] - Quote
The stats for the T1 module seem pretty good. The stats for the T2 version are completely off. 25km vs 250km, are you high?
The best way to determine who has grid control is by limiting the range on the module. If you've won the fight and have killed/chased off any fleet that actually poses a threat, why should you then give two ***** about some crap sitting 200km off? Restrict the range of the module to 25/30km (if not less), it forces you to slap your **** down on the ihub if you wish to RF it (which is only right).
You could potentially look at a speed reduction while the module is active (on top of the warping restriction). The key feature currently missing is risk - if you want to use the module, you should have to commit to it, and put assets at risk. Currently there is little risk if you can just kite while the 2 minutes run down and then warp off.
Warping to zero
|
Assassn Gallic
Big Diggers Get Off My Lawn
25
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 13:38:59 -
[25] - Quote
Dave Stark wrote:EvilweaselFinance wrote:Trollceptors fundamentally don't fit the "effective control of the grid" argument. The things that can hit an orbiting snaked-out interceptor are few and far between and require very specific fits to counter, allowing a trollceptor to easily keep a link alive without effective control of the grid. This also forces specific metas, in opposition to the view that they should not affect the meta - you have to be able to blap interceptors in your fleet composition.
They also simply allow you to evade committing anything to a fight, and if you're attacking sov at the very least you should be risking a single ship. fortunately you don't have to hit a trollceptor to stop it, just activate your own link.
Except that doesn't "stop" the interceptor, it negates it until one of the two get bored and leave. That's not how sov should be working, you fight for your space not kite for your space.
Fighters, bring back their Scan res!
Fighter scan res thread
|
Anya Solette
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
30
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 13:40:05 -
[26] - Quote
afkalt wrote:EvilweaselFinance wrote:Trollceptors fundamentally don't fit the "effective control of the grid" argument. The things that can hit an orbiting snaked-out interceptor are few and far between and require very specific fits to counter, allowing a trollceptor to easily keep a link alive without effective control of the grid. This also forces specific metas, in opposition to the view that they should not affect the meta - you have to be able to blap interceptors in your fleet composition.
They also simply allow you to evade committing anything to a fight, and if you're attacking sov at the very least you should be risking a single ship. A 100m isk, 2k EHP ship with a billion isk pod? I'm sure they'll be ten-a-penny
100m isk is literally an hour of ratting on an afk alt, i sneeze and more isk comes out my nose than that. Also, unless you have a dictor with perfect coordination and a good warpin at the instant you alpha the trollceptor, you're not catching that snaked pod. |
Phoenix Jones
Isogen 5
1138
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 13:40:07 -
[27] - Quote
Probably the simplest solution is ship restrictions. No interceptors (bubble immunity), no covops ship.
Actually I would go as far as saying that the entosis link cannot be onlined if there is any type of cloaking device (covops or basic), on the ship.
So no interceptors, nothing with a cloaking device.
If you want to address the kiting ships, only allow the t2 version of the entosis device (the one at 250km), on battle cruisers and above.
You remove bubble immune ships from beginning captures, remove troll cloaky campers from entosising a system without any help, and remove kiters by making the long range version bc and above.
Yea you will have to put some restrictions on them unfortunately.
The alternative is to make the 250 km version so haneously expensive that people wouldn't use it on a frigate or cruiser.
Yaay!!!!
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
12058
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 13:40:24 -
[28] - Quote
Jaro Essa wrote: You won't have to kill the interceptor. With your own entosis link active on the structure or command node, no progress can be made towards the timer.
Which, I would point out, is not promoting conflict. It's fighting kiting with boredom. You're just sitting there on the button, while he's sitting there a hundred kilometers away from the button, waiting until one of you gives up.
Great mechanic, bro. Such conflict, much meaningful.
Quote: Though, if you can't kill one interceptor, why should you have sov?
Why should a solo interceptor be the deciding factor for control of an entire system? Or any factor at all?
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Huffy Dragon
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
1
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 13:40:51 -
[29] - Quote
Make them only fit to command ships and T1 (no faction) battleships.
Time to revive some dead shipclasses.
I don't fear the entosis-ceptor on grid. I fear the entosis-ceptor crossing an entire region in 10 minutes, escaping gatecamps and ninja-reinforcing everywhere. |
Capqu
Love Squad Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
1063
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 13:41:10 -
[30] - Quote
remove interceptor bubble immunity
no ship should be uncatchable, and interceptors were already one of the safest ships to move around null with before the change. now they just completely overshadow all other frigates because they have a binary ability which the others cannot match
my kb has a lot of interceptors on it for the record, and i really really don't think they need this to remain competitive. point range, mwd signature and (warp) speed are more than enough
https://zkillboard.com/character/1107018389/topalltime/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPntjTPWgKE
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 50 60 70 .. 76 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |