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) |
Promiscuous Female
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
588
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 16:31:18 -
[271] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote:Promiscuous Female wrote:Eli Apol wrote:Promiscuous Female wrote:this is not how grid fu works You can shrink a grid by extending the grids that surround it... I learned this from a goons .pdf It's quite a common technique in Niarja and Uedema to make the grids surrounding the gates smaller so that they can gank offgrid without having to bump the freighters so far. you can only do this if there is no one else on grid holding it open grid fu will never cause a stationary ship to suddenly slip out of a grid through no fault of its own So now the trollceptors are stationary and a defensive group has no time in the preceeding days/weeks/months to grid-fu the environs around their susceptible structures before this cloud of stationary interceptors arrives and sits with zero transversal? Keep digging that hole. i too log on every day to re-grid-fu my tcu, ihub, and station in every system I possess to acquire an infinitesimal advantage
nevermind that is an exploit and would eventually get reported
and yes the interceptor stays still while it is capturing, as long as no one else is on grid
this way it can be in the best position to run away, orbiting means you eventually start orbiting towards a celestial and get owned |
GeeShizzle MacCloud
531
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 16:31:30 -
[272] - Quote
surely to have the least impact on fleet doctrine fits and the dynamic of fleet/gang warfare having the entosis link as a module means it will take the place of a module that keeps a fitting or doctrine at its optimum unless it just so happens that module is not critical but a tactical option.
eg: drone boats would have more room for a high slot module then gun or missile based doctrines, mid slot modules would benefit armor doctrines more, low slot modules will favour shield doctrines.
so knowing this surely the entosis link should be an implant that allows you a right click option on a sov structure as it would have the least effect on fleet doctrines. Plus its meant to be a mind to machine interface after all. |
Arkon Olacar
Bearded BattleBears Brave Collective
507
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 16:31:43 -
[273] - Quote
John McCreedy wrote:I don't know about you but the average player plays around 3-4 hours a day during the week. Your alliance is going to set the vulnerability window to the time you play Eve. I'm going to sit there in my cloaky interceptor. Am I there to annoy you? Or am I there to reinforce your sov? You can't probe me out because I'm cloaked. You can't stop me because I'm interdiction nullified. Do you want to take the chance I can reinforce G-E? More importantly, does Brave?
So you have a choice. Ignore me and hope I'm just there as an annoyance. Or risk sov in your Capital system. If you want to protect it, you've no choice but to set up a camps on the Station, the TCU and the iHub because gate camps are useless. So your entire play time is reduced to a camp to try catch a cloaky camper that may or may not attack your sov. No ratting for you. No mining for you. No roaming for you. All the other time zones in your alliance can rat or mine or roam. But not you. Not yours. You are on guard duty. Why? Because CCP decided it was a good idea to allow Interceptors to reinforce systems. Sound like fun to you?
While all of this is true, it does miss out the key part.
It's not just you doing this.
You're sitting there in GE-, while 50 of your buddies are spread out one per system across Catch. The moment a system is unprotected, that guy decloaks and starts using his link. The moment something turns up to counter that ceptor, he burns off, warps away and cloaks up. Sure, that saves that system, for now. But then that group of defenders has to go a few systems over, to take care of another one of your buddies. He decloaks and starts RFing the ihub again.
This process will dominate that region for the entire four hour window, with no rest or respite. And no matter how hard they try, the defenders will not be able to be everywhere at once, and will be faced at least half a dozen timers the next day as payment for their four hours of mindnumbingly dull work, with no kills or assets lost by the aggressor.
The next day, the defender now has these timers to deal with, and he has to capture 50-100 command nodes to keep hold of his space. Meanwhile, those 50 ceptors are still sat there, still poking away every time you turn your back. End result is the defender wastes hours of peoples time, keep hold of most (but not all) of the systems under attack, and is now faced with another dozen timers for the next day.
Welcome to Fozziesov.
Warping to zero
|
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
890
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 16:32:08 -
[274] - Quote
Promiscuous Female wrote:afkalt wrote: 100km is plenty. 75km is plenty as it will either be orbiting or stationary, you'll catch it.
Also, territory defended. Op success.
A NOOB SHIP with a link can stop this nonsense, never mind something with weapons.
These are never in a million years going to be the terrors you're making out if you live in your space. I recall of a lot of chat about siphons and this exact thing being bandied about. "It's too easy", "we'll siphon every moon in the cosmos just because".
If you think the eve collective can't come up with creative ways to stop these (hint: 80m modules assumed to be on EVERY 'ceptor in a given window is a big incentive to pop these) I don't know what to tell you (but I'm buying up smartbombs before it's too late)
why do you keep repeating the part about stopping the capture when we keep telling you that isn't where our concerns lie hell I will repeat it the issue is the ability for the interceptor to run away once a force comes to stop it, the fact that it cannot be killed outside of serious pilot error also you seem to have a funny concept of how distances work hint: 110km > 100km
Recons are cloaky.
Also seeing as the posts seem to be disappearing - I guess I'm not allowed to contest the trollceptors even though it is directly on topic. |
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine Second-Dawn
720
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 16:32:52 -
[275] - Quote
Promiscuous Female wrote:Dracvlad wrote:Hopefully the person who keeps reporting my posts will not be able to get this one removed, fingers crossed:
The question about interceptors is a key one in terms of certain regions that are very difficult to get to, the first concept to work back to is the question of whether this requires regional defence or system defence. If you want it to system defence the interceptors must be an option.
The issue of course comes in with the ability to get there, this is not Grrr Goons, but Goon Deklin is the example that I need to highlight, without the use of interceptors you give the Goons such a strategic advantage we might as well just give up, all they have to do is gate camp three gates, which will be behind other gate camps. Then you will give them free reign to run around doing what they want with very little fear about their home area.
It comes down to you CCP Fozzie thinking whether having people able to RF stuff with interceptors to grief balances off against the inability to get into Deklin space in any meaningful way.
I of course would prefer to have the ability to use interceptors as part of what I would call the softening up period, trying to throw the defender off balance by splitting their defence, but I would be happy to do that in a fair amount of 0.0 space without the ability of interceptors to get through bubbles and gate camps, but not killing me in terms of cost if lost, the only other ships that could do that are T3's but they cost.
So if you remove the ability to use interceptors you reduce the need for system defence! i guess they don't have blops BS, covert cloaking ships, or wormholes where you live
Well I assumed that people would understand those other options, but obviously not.
Ella's Snack bar
|
EvilweaselFinance
BUTTECORP INC Goonswarm Federation
618
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 16:34:08 -
[276] - Quote
afkalt wrote:Smartbomb camps will pop up. I GUARANTEE it.
no they won't considering they don't work, as anyone who has ever tried one against inties knows |
Promiscuous Female
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
588
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 16:34:09 -
[277] - Quote
afkalt wrote:Promiscuous Female wrote:afkalt wrote: 100km is plenty. 75km is plenty as it will either be orbiting or stationary, you'll catch it.
Also, territory defended. Op success.
A NOOB SHIP with a link can stop this nonsense, never mind something with weapons.
These are never in a million years going to be the terrors you're making out if you live in your space. I recall of a lot of chat about siphons and this exact thing being bandied about. "It's too easy", "we'll siphon every moon in the cosmos just because".
If you think the eve collective can't come up with creative ways to stop these (hint: 80m modules assumed to be on EVERY 'ceptor in a given window is a big incentive to pop these) I don't know what to tell you (but I'm buying up smartbombs before it's too late)
why do you keep repeating the part about stopping the capture when we keep telling you that isn't where our concerns lie hell I will repeat it the issue is the ability for the interceptor to run away once a force comes to stop it, the fact that it cannot be killed outside of serious pilot error also you seem to have a funny concept of how distances work hint: 110km > 100km Recons are cloaky. Smartbomb camps will pop up. I GUARANTEE it. recons have sensor recal and terrible scan res and terrible speed while cloaked
also smartbomb camps require battleships with a quarter of the warp speed and require an interceptor pilot that is too stupid to bounce celestials |
Favonius85
House Aratus Fatal Ascension
14
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 16:34:29 -
[278] - Quote
Afterburner and Microwarpdrive Maximum Velocity Bonus = -90 %
This was the first thing I thought of after I read about the Entosis Link fittings question. Seems to address the concerns nicely. |
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine Second-Dawn
720
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 16:34:47 -
[279] - Quote
John McCreedy wrote:Dracvlad wrote:Hopefully the person who keeps reporting my posts will not be able to get this one removed, fingers crossed:
The question about interceptors is a key one in terms of certain regions that are very difficult to get to, the first concept to work back to is the question of whether this requires regional defence or system defence. If you want it to be system defence the interceptors must be an option.
The issue of course comes in with the ability to get there, this is not Grrr Goons, but Goon Deklin is the example that I need to highlight, without the use of interceptors you give the Goons such a strategic advantage we might as well just give up, all they have to do is gate camp three gates, which will be behind other gate camps. Then you will give them free reign to run around doing what they want with very little fear about their home area.
It comes down to you CCP Fozzie thinking whether having people able to RF stuff with interceptors to grief balances off against the inability to get into Deklin space in any meaningful way.
I of course would prefer to have the ability to use interceptors as part of what I would call the softening up period, trying to throw the defender off balance by splitting their defence, but I would be happy to do that in a fair amount of 0.0 space without the ability of interceptors to get through bubbles and gate camps, but not killing me in terms of cost if lost, the only other ships that could do that are T3's but they cost.
So if you remove the ability to use interceptors you reduce the need for system defence! No, it simply requires the attacker to put a little more planning in to their attack than simply jump in an especially fitted interceptor and burn all the way from Feythabolis to Deklien in order to knock VFK in to reinforce mode? What was that about nerfing power projection, CCP?
A single interceptor could not rf VFK, unless the majority of Goons were off on campaign, which is the point of what I was saying.
Ella's Snack bar
|
rsantos
Mosquito Squadron Mordus Angels
36
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 16:36:19 -
[280] - Quote
Promiscuous Female wrote:afkalt wrote:Promiscuous Female wrote:Veskrashen wrote:Promiscuous Female wrote:what is it about the concept "the interceptor can travel at will and disengage at will" are you chuckleheads failing to grasp The fact that it can't "disengage at will" while an Entosis Link is active? Which gives a defender up to 2 minutes to close and kill it? Especially when the fight starts at less than 80km due to combat probes? how do you close on an interceptor before it burns off grid exactly hint: they go fast, can't be bubbled, and scrams have a very short range on anything that can keep up with them Unless they're linked, drugged and on high grade slaves, a Cerberus will ruin their day. So will a cloaky recon. But let's not let realities get in the way of the propaganda machine. A rapier can only web to 100km with gang boners An arazu scram is under 75km A cerberus has a maximum engagement window of 125km, its missiles take 12 seconds to go that far, while the interceptor starts at 110km (malediction) and has the benefit of dscan, a 2 second minimum warp deceleration window, and a cruiser's terrible lock time in which to heat its MWD and start burning away none of these things require the malediction to have drugs, boners, or implants
Its not a F1 solution we know that! |
|
DaeHan Minhyok
Multiplex Gaming The Bastion
50
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 16:37:11 -
[281] - Quote
xttz wrote:DaeHan Minhyok wrote:What if the entosis link required charges each cycle and the quantity and volume of charges made it inpractical for T1/T2 frig/desi or tactical desi to run a link long enough to challenge any solar system sov with any single index above a 2-3?
Thus a small ship would have to sacrifice its low slots and rigs to cargo rxpansion hampering its speed, agility, dps, and tank.
This would also make battlecruisers and larger a necessity for taking systems with higher indices. This is a more elegant solution than preventing specific fits. If frigates could only run 1 or 2 cycles before needing to reload somewhere, they would at least require some form of support and/or teamwork. It probably does make blockade runners the new Big Bad, but at least they're vulnerable to bubbles.
And blockade runners/industrials are fairly easy to kill for 1-3 pilots than chasing an interceptor all over grid. Also, if an industrial ship accompanies one or more speedy frigates that drop by for more charges both ships must be at 0m/s or at least slow at some point and thus vulnerable to long range volleys and/or tackle.
|
Eli Apol
Pro Synergy
329
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 16:38:30 -
[282] - Quote
Promiscuous Female wrote:i too log on every day to re-grid-fu my tcu, ihub, and station in every system I possess to acquire an infinitesimal advantage
nevermind that is an exploit and would eventually get reported
and yes the interceptor stays still while it is capturing, as long as no one else is on grid
this way it can be in the best position to run away, orbiting means you eventually start orbiting towards a celestial and get owned So now using the grid fu we've forced the 100m each attacking interceptors to sit static in one specific part of the surrounding sphere and we can't drop a RLML stealth bomber right on top of them?
Also if this IS an exploit I'd love to know because miniluv, code et al use it on a daily basis.
Also FYI since this doesn't seem to be your strong suit in knowledge of mechanics, you just anchor a mobile depot there and don't need to repeat your actions on a daily basis. |
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
892
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 16:39:21 -
[283] - Quote
EvilweaselFinance wrote:afkalt wrote:Smartbomb camps will pop up. I GUARANTEE it. no they won't considering they don't work, as anyone who has ever tried one against inties knows
You heard it here first. No intys have ever died to a SB battleship gang.
I get it, you're all terrified of interceptors and want to hide behind hell bubbled gate camps. But let's not make out they're the boogieman here.
It is a game changer. We must adapt or fade into insignificance.
And yes, I'm eagerly awaiting the doomsayer threats of people RFing the whole of null...
People catch and kill quad stabbed frigates in FW....they'll catch these too. |
Hiwashi
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
2
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 16:39:41 -
[284] - Quote
I feel like the Entosis Link should behave mostly like a Cyno. You can't move/warp while it's active plus no remote assistance from other ships ( like reps ) and that's about it.
You could even make the ship that uses the Entosis Link to show on the overview system wide so it's easier to know where it is and who is using it. |
Promiscuous Female
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
591
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 16:40:30 -
[285] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote:So now using the grid fu we've forced the 100m each attacking interceptors to sit static in one specific part of the surrounding sphere and we can't drop a RLML stealth bomber right on top of them? your vignette is starting to accrue too much detail cruft
grid-fuing every single grid in your empire is impractical in terms of manhours spent to defend for benefit gained
it's also, y'know, an exploit
if someone started doing this, you just report it and it stops happening |
Johnny Twelvebore
The Tuskers The Tuskers Co.
62
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 16:41:30 -
[286] - Quote
All this complaining about "trollceptors" is making my head hurt.
If your problem is a ceptor which is fit to lock at 200km then it's combat viability is almost zero, use another fast ship to kill it - as the rules currently stand it cannot warp with the new module active. There are plenty of fast missile ships to choose from.
End of discussion, if your multi thousand man sov holding entity cannot catch one ceptor which is essentially already tackled by virtue of using it's sov module then perhaps you don't deserve that sov.
Alternatively I would be happy to accept ISK to come and teach you how to fly.
Bloody hell, another eve blog! http://johnnytwelvebore.wordpress.com
|
EvilweaselFinance
BUTTECORP INC Goonswarm Federation
621
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 16:41:51 -
[287] - Quote
[quote=afkalt] It is a game changer. We must adapt or fade into insignificance./quote] who is this "we", highsec npc character
interceptor gangs have been going on for months, and are effectively uncounterable. im sure that in highsec you don't see them, but in null we see them all the time. "what if we used a lot of interceptors" is a thing that the rest of us thought of well before this, and are now used because you cannot kill them with any sort of camp, smartbombs included
|
LT Alter
Dodixie Undock Is Camped
142
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 16:41:52 -
[288] - Quote
I have a suggestion for a change to the entosis link, not a suggestion for a change to the mechanics themselves but to the modules themselves. Currently I like the mechanical design idea of the entosis links, I feel it will be good for the game. However, while I donGÇÖt believe GÇÿtrollceptorsGÇÖ will be much of a problem to deal with, I do have a problem with the fact that they can still go around harassing sovereignty structures with very little risk to themselves.
The problem of low risk stems from the insane range of the T2 entosis link. While that could easily be solved by making the T2 entosis link harder or impossible to fit on a frigate, I feel that would go against the idea of the entosis link being available to most/all ship-types in the game.
Another point to be made is, as the entosis link is, GÇ£A way for the server to determine who has control of the grid.GÇ¥ I feel that the 250km range makes stalemates a probable occurrence if the enemy continually place ships at extreme ranges around the target and disrupting the group who actually has control of the space surrounding the target structure. As Fozzie said, the idea is to avoid such stalemates. Though, I feel the structure defender should have some ability to disrupt a stronger attacker, without being able to halt their progress altogether.
My idea proposes not a change to the entosis link mechanics, but the entosis links themselves. Rather than make them T1 and T2, make them separate types of entosis links. Here are my suggested modules below.
Direct Entosis Link I
Description: The early iterations of mind-machine interfacing the mind needed to be directly linked to the machine through wires. Further iterations allowed for wireless links, however for a direct link to be made close proximity is still required.
Fitting:
- Easy to fit on any class of ship.
Stats:
- Only very short range. If the ship leaves this range the link is broken (But must still wait out module deactivation time)
- Ship becomes immune to targeted electronic-warfare during activation.
- Maximum Target Count set to 1 during module activation.
- Requires the skill Infomorph Psychology (rank 1 skill).
- Low fitting requirements, uses high power slot.
- Only one may be fitted per ship.
- Cannot be used by trial accounts.
Indirect Entosis Link I
Description: Advancements in mind-machine interacting have allowed for an indirect link. This link requires less concentration and has a much longer effective range. However, it is far less efficient than a direct link, requiring a constant use of the ships capacitor pool to remain active. It is also much slower at interfacing with the machine.
Fitting:
- Easy to fit on any ship.
- 50% reduction in maximum capacitor (similar to how an MWD does). The percentage based reduction makes this viable on all ship types, rather than an arbitrary number. This is to counteract ships fit with oversized propulsion modules and ships fit just for speed. By forcing them to sacrifice speed to remain stable.
- 25% reduction in lock range and sensor strength
Stats:
- Ship is NOT electronic warfare immune.
- If the target lock is broken the entosis link no longer has an effect. (Ship must wait out deactivation timer before module can be used again)
- Has extremely long range.
- Ship does NOT have a maximum locked targets reduction.
- Capture speed is slower than the Direct Entosis Link.
- If activated while an enemy is currently using a Direct Entosis LInk, it slows down the enemyGÇÖs capture speed (Unless the enemy can break his target lock of course).
- Requires the skill Infomorph Psychology (rank 1 skill).
- Low fitting requirements, uses high power slot.
- Only one may be fitted per ship.
- Cannot be used by trial accounts.
My reasoning behind these two modules is simply this. Small groups should be able to harass sov structures, however I feel that a solo frigate should not be able to reinforce/capture a random structure in 5-20 minutes while orbiting at maximum range, should not be possible. If he is willing to put himself in a position of risk, where he has no ability to fend off the enemy (He can only lock the structure while using direct link), must be close to the structure and cannot be repaired. Of course, he can also put himself in a safer position with the indirect link, however he will need more time to reinforce/capture the structure.
Also, if an enemy is capturing a structure, the defender can take an indirect link and warp in at range to disrupt the attacker. The idea behind this is to buy time for support. This is balanced because he cannot halt his attackerGÇÖs progress, and his attackers may break his lock to continue at full speed.
Edit: The users would still be unable receive repairs, remote sensor boosters, ect. while the link is active. As already planned with the entosis link. |
Promiscuous Female
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
591
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 16:42:07 -
[289] - Quote
Eli Apol wrote: Also if this IS an exploit I'd love to know because miniluv, code et al use it on a daily basis.
this sounds like a fairy tale rather than an observed phenomenon |
Eli Apol
Pro Synergy
329
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 16:42:11 -
[290] - Quote
Promiscuous Female wrote:Eli Apol wrote:So now using the grid fu we've forced the 100m each attacking interceptors to sit static in one specific part of the surrounding sphere and we can't drop a RLML stealth bomber right on top of them? your vignette is starting to accrue too much detail cruft grid-fuing every single grid in your empire is impractical in terms of manhours spent to defend for benefit gained Sounds impractical if you have hundreds of the things yeah...a lot of hassle for *some* people.
Still waiting for confirmation this is an exploit that some members of the CFC use every day in highsec. |
|
Promiscuous Female
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
591
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 16:42:56 -
[291] - Quote
Johnny Twelvebore wrote:All this complaining about "trollceptors" is making my head hurt.
If your problem is a ceptor which is fit to lock at 200km then it's combat viability is almost zero, use another fast ship to kill it - as the rules currently stand it cannot warp with the new module active. There are plenty of fast missile ships to choose from.
End of discussion, if your multi thousand man sov holding entity cannot catch one ceptor which is essentially already tackled by virtue of using it's sov module then perhaps you don't deserve that sov. the interceptor burns off grid, waits out the 2m timer, and escapes
it needs no combat viability to do this |
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine Second-Dawn
721
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 16:43:55 -
[292] - Quote
EvilweaselFinance wrote:Dracvlad wrote:It comes down to you CCP Fozzie thinking whether having people able to RF stuff with interceptors to grief balances off against the inability to get into Deklin space in any meaningful way. if deklein, the most populated and well-used 0.0 region in the entire game, isn't easily defensible what on earth do you think is going to happen to every single other region no matter what the defenders do
As I said its not Grr Goons, but when you are off on campaign one strategic option a defender has is to do a rush assault on your space and the interceptors would enable this. I meant to explain this in detail, but with the censoring I keep getting I was loath to write it all out.
Ella's Snack bar
|
Killian Cormac
Cormac Distribution
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 16:44:42 -
[293] - Quote
Hiwashi wrote:I feel like the Entosis Link should behave mostly like a Cyno. You can't move/warp while it's active plus no remote assistance from other ships ( like reps ) and that's about it.
I'd be fine with that if capture only took a few minutes. But as it stands now, 30-40 minutes immobile in the middle of hostile territory would guarantee defeat.
I get that sov holders don't want sov to flip too easily, but with all the inherent advantages that a defender has, the attacker must be provided some countervailing opportunities as well. |
EvilweaselFinance
BUTTECORP INC Goonswarm Federation
621
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 16:45:38 -
[294] - Quote
Dracvlad wrote: As I said its not Grr Goons, but when you are off on campaign one strategic option a defender has is to do a rush assault on your space and the interceptors would enable this. I meant to explain this in detail, but with the censoring I keep getting I was loath to write it all out.
deklein remains considerably more populated and used when we are "on campaign" than any other region is, ever
we do not pack up and move the entire alliance, alts exist |
Mo'Chuisle
The Executives Executive Outcomes
23
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 16:46:26 -
[295] - 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.
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
Don't sign your posts please
|
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp Vae. Victis.
6165
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 16:46:53 -
[296] - Quote
colera deldios wrote:Reserved so I can criticize you when I get home from work. In short you keep talking about having all these tools at your disposal for balancing yet we have yet seen you use it to any effect. How about using your brain to see the obvious flaw in your mechanic. While you started good with sov changes everything you will do by letting frig/destroyer class use the Entosis link is create a pissing contest all over eve. Lately lot's of things you have said just make no sense which is a shame because you have done some good work in the past. This whole sov package thing is nothing it's a **** poor implementation if the sov chagnes on the day they come out do not include:
- Measures to prevent an all-out pissing contest with frigs and destroyers which they will.
- Overhaul of the 0.0 Income
- Capital and super capital overhaul
People have been waiting for 6 years for this expansion. CCP which you are part of has had 6 years to plan for this expansion and deliver a conclusive package to address all problems with sov and sovereignty warfare. It is not fair to the community that you are so willing to HALF-ASS this expansion. It's not fair to the people who built this game into what it is today. That the one thing they have been asking for the most the one most important thing, comes out as nothing more as a half done pissing contest. What you are doing by saying "hey we have tools now to easily balance things later on" is an insult to those players after countless discussions and years of waiting CCP owes it to the players not to half-ass this expansion. These players should not have to wait so long and ask for so long for a change only to get something so poorly done with a statement MEH WILL CHANGE IT LATER IF IT DOES NOT WORK OUT.Quote:I would suggest that you put the sov chagnes back on the table because what you have now is jack ****. And rework them so that when delivered they are delivered as they need to be including the whole package addressing the 0.0 income and capitals and super capitals. If you want to retain your position as a game designer than you should also consider your own personal attitude. And this goes well for both you and CCP Rise. As game designers you need to detach your self from your personal bias to see the larger effect your actions will have because from the last few devblogs all you have demonstrated is that you are beyond detached from reality. Calm down Francis. You've completely misunderstood the purpose of this thread, and what Fozzie said in his original post.
View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents.
|
Promiscuous Female
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
592
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 16:47:16 -
[297] - Quote
EvilweaselFinance wrote:Dracvlad wrote: As I said its not Grr Goons, but when you are off on campaign one strategic option a defender has is to do a rush assault on your space and the interceptors would enable this. I meant to explain this in detail, but with the censoring I keep getting I was loath to write it all out.
deklein remains considerably more populated and used when we are "on campaign" than any other region is, ever we do not pack up and move the entire alliance, alts exist the prime time mechanic also allows us to put two thirds of our alliance on attack at any given moment while maintaining a sufficient redoubt back home |
John McCreedy
Eve Defence Force The Kadeshi
167
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 16:48:39 -
[298] - Quote
Arkon Olacar wrote:John McCreedy wrote:I don't know about you but the average player plays around 3-4 hours a day during the week. Your alliance is going to set the vulnerability window to the time you play Eve. I'm going to sit there in my cloaky interceptor. Am I there to annoy you? Or am I there to reinforce your sov? You can't probe me out because I'm cloaked. You can't stop me because I'm interdiction nullified. Do you want to take the chance I can reinforce G-E? More importantly, does Brave?
So you have a choice. Ignore me and hope I'm just there as an annoyance. Or risk sov in your Capital system. If you want to protect it, you've no choice but to set up a camps on the Station, the TCU and the iHub because gate camps are useless. So your entire play time is reduced to a camp to try catch a cloaky camper that may or may not attack your sov. No ratting for you. No mining for you. No roaming for you. All the other time zones in your alliance can rat or mine or roam. But not you. Not yours. You are on guard duty. Why? Because CCP decided it was a good idea to allow Interceptors to reinforce systems. Sound like fun to you? While all of this is true, it does miss out the key part. It's not just you doing this. You're sitting there in GE-, while 50 of your buddies are spread out one per system across Catch. The moment a system is unprotected, that guy decloaks and starts using his link. The moment something turns up to counter that ceptor, he burns off, warps away and cloaks up. Sure, that saves that system, for now. But then that group of defenders has to go a few systems over, to take care of another one of your buddies. He decloaks and starts RFing the ihub again. This process will dominate that region for the entire four hour window, with no rest or respite. And no matter how hard they try, the defenders will not be able to be everywhere at once, and will be faced at least half a dozen timers the next day as payment for their four hours of mindnumbingly dull work, with no kills or assets lost by the aggressor. The next day, the defender now has these timers to deal with, and he has to capture 50-100 command nodes to keep hold of his space. Meanwhile, those 50 ceptors are still sat there, still poking away every time you turn your back. End result is the defender wastes hours of peoples time, keep hold of most (but not all) of the systems under attack, and is now faced with another dozen timers for the next day. Welcome to Fozziesov.
I understand that but you misunderstood my point. The lad was saying that the 'trollceptor' issue wasn't an issue. I was explaining in terms of how it would be an issue for him if he's one of the people on guard duty each night. |
FT Diomedes
The Graduates Forged of Fire
858
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 16:49:11 -
[299] - Quote
Arkon Olacar wrote:There's another issue people tend to forget when churning out "if you want to keep your sov you should be able to kill an interceptor" posts. When fighting for an ihub timer, large numbers of the defending alliance will be concentrated into a single constellation, to win the timer. If they don't show up, they risk losing ihubs and sov, and so the defender has to commit as many as possible to that timer.
Meanwhile there is nothing to stop a 3rd party from gathering a few dozen interceptors/frigates and RFing the rest of the region nearly unopposed. Sure there might be a few guys left who can form up to chase off roaming gangs, but can this small section of the online playerbase of the defenders be in several dozen places at once? Of course not. The next 'primetime' window would see dozens and dozens of timers in a 4 hour window, meaning the defenders would need to capture literally hundreds of command nodes, each taking at least 10 minutes.
At the minute there is only one thing stopping a 3rd party from RFing most of a region while the defending alliance is tied up at another timer - HP based warfare requires them to commit assets to do so. This element of risk from the aggressor must remain. There should be nothing to stop a 3rd party splitting up and trying to RF half the region at once, but if the defender turns up then that should result in explosions. If the aggressor can simply run away and the defender is left chasing shadows, unable to keep up with the sheer number of structures under attack simultaneously, then the defender would simply stop bothering. Living in nullsec would simply not be worth the effort.
This is me talking from the Brave perspective - if we would struggle to both contest a single major timer and keep Catch (one of the most densely populated nullsec regions in the game) free from a large number of small gangs, then how on earth are 'normal' alliances supposted to have a chance?
This is far and away the biggest issue. Only the largest alliances really have a chance of holding even a single region when faced with opportunistic and agile enemies.
The Greatest Ship Ever. Credit to Shahfluffers.
|
Killian Cormac
Cormac Distribution
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 16:54:30 -
[300] - Quote
FT Diomedes wrote: Only the largest alliances really have a chance of holding even a single region when faced with opportunistic and agile enemies.
If this isn't a design goal, it should be. The largest player organizations shouldn't be able to control more than the largest named area to begin with. |
|
|
|
|
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 |