| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 9 post(s) |
GeeShizzle MacCloud
531
   |
Posted - 2015.03.09 16:31:30 -
[1] - 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. |
GeeShizzle MacCloud
534
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 23:04:10 -
[2] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:
As much as possible, the Entosis Link capture progress should reflect which group has effective military control of the grid.
...
The restrictions and penalties on the Entosis Link should be as simple and understandable as possible.
...
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.
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
Fozzie for the love of god you need to define the mechanics of the Entosis Link more clearly so that we have a starting ground for how we should approach the discussion of module balance!
For example we dont even know if the modules warp prevention mechanic is retained upon a broken lock or not. This simple facet of the mechanic is a fundamental aspect of its balance that you've yet to define and gives us no real area to start a true and proper discussion on this area of the module balance.
I'd say more than half of this discussion is based on pure conjecture and total assumptions purely down to your lack of will or desire to nail down specifics.
So for gods sake grow some balls and put some specifics on the table so we can better critique and offer accurate descriptions of potential issues, rather than just some complete sociopathic "lets watch the mouthbreathers fight over the candy" style freak show that's currently going on.
|
GeeShizzle MacCloud
536
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 23:17:57 -
[3] - Quote
Alavaria Fera wrote:
a ceptor is capable of denying you "effective military control of the grid" so where's the problem?
literally shut the f**k up, you're actually more annoying the xenuria. |
GeeShizzle MacCloud
537
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 23:26:47 -
[4] - Quote
Promiscuous Female wrote:GeeShizzle MacCloud wrote:Alavaria Fera wrote:
a ceptor is capable of denying you "effective military control of the grid" so where's the problem?
literally shut the f**k up, you're actually more annoying the xenuria. oof, forums burnout i think you broke this one Alavaria Fera
no, Alavaria Fera's only role on this entire thread is to taunt and goad MOA, and i can understand and respect that but much like someone hates on ISIS. im all for the sentiment but f**k i dont want it shoved down my throat every 4th post on this thread.
he's literally adding f**k all to this discussion, and if i could block him and the people he's goading and not see the posts in the forum i would because i highly doubt they would advance the subject at all. |
GeeShizzle MacCloud
537
|
Posted - 2015.03.10 11:42:55 -
[5] - Quote
*DING DIING DING*
Round 3! |
GeeShizzle MacCloud
537
|
Posted - 2015.03.10 12:58:05 -
[6] - Quote
The way i see it:
- remove the T2 Entosis Link module
- keep the t1
if kiting/sniper fleets want to affect the military control of either a grid with a sov structure or a node in the capture mechanic then they can:
because after all, the link stops remote repping and sniper doctrines are all about alpha at range, most ECM boats tank is their range to targets anyway. Plus the non snipers cannot move out of Entosis link range else it breaks and they dont make progress securing the structure. So the problem solves itself and you get a balanced fair system. |
GeeShizzle MacCloud
537
|
Posted - 2015.03.10 14:39:12 -
[7] - Quote
Dave Stark wrote:GeeShizzle MacCloud wrote:The way i see it:
- remove the T2 Entosis Link module
- keep the t1
if kiting/sniper fleets want to affect the military control of either a grid with a sov structure or a node in the capture mechanic then they can: because after all, the link stops remote repping and sniper doctrines are all about alpha at range, most ECM boats tank is their range to targets anyway. Plus the non snipers cannot move out of Entosis link range else it breaks and they dont make progress securing the structure. So the problem solves itself and you get a balanced fair system. until you get a clash of two entities of sufficient size where the fight for control of the grid lasts longer than the capture cycle and therefore the sniper fleet loses by default because the fight lasts longer than the capture cycle and they have no way of halting the capture cycle.
theres plenty of methods that will break and hinder the sov securing of a stationary fleet close to the sov structure or command node, but if the kiting sniper fleet has not thought beyond, get on grid and run away shooting stuff that approaches then yes, they shouldnt be considered having effective military control over the grid because by definition they're entire playstyle is in being evasive.
evasion is not the tool of the occupying or controlling force. it is the tool of a lesser guerilla-style occupied or harassment force. |
GeeShizzle MacCloud
537
|
Posted - 2015.03.10 15:00:25 -
[8] - Quote
Dave Stark wrote:
no, they're simply playing to the advantage of their hull and weapon bonuses. if those bonuses put you outside the range to capture a node because you have to be within 25km, that just means the system is flawed.
they're not evading anything, they're sitting there fighting - just out of range of the objective because you've deemed that the range to the objective should be 25km or less. the only reason they'll lose the contest is because they decided not to try and brawl with 1400s, or something.
the solution, would be that you can stop a capture from >25km, but you can't initiate one. that stops sniper fleets losing by default in sufficiently large engagements due to an inability to prevent a capture, but will stop them just sitting 250km away going "nar nar na nar nar you can't catch me".
well done on contradicting yourself there by the way.
so a sniper fleet that sits still saying 'nar nar you cant catch me'
its in fact extremely easy to catch a sniper fleet sitting still, but sniper fleets never sit still because doing so is suicide. sniper fleets use speed and evasion to survive.
|
GeeShizzle MacCloud
537
|
Posted - 2015.03.10 15:17:55 -
[9] - Quote
Dave Stark wrote:
regardless; the idea that sniper fleets shouldn't be allowed to contest sov is utterly rediculous. yes, that is what the result of having a 25km max range on ectoplasm links will be.
ill look past the fact you've decided to go the route of being offensive and hurling abuse because you're arguments are flawed and you cannot ctrl+z your posts, but saying that sniper fleets do not contest sov by evasive guerilla style warfare is totally flawed.
Yes they have an effect, no they shouldnt openly be able to counter a larger occupying force but they do wither down an opponent over time.
here's a real world example for you:
La Resistance didn't contest the occupying forces of germany and stop their conquest of france, they used guerilla warfare (a form of evasive warfare) to wear down the occupying force until such time that an exterior force came in to liberate it with the ability to take the towns and cities, not skirt about the fields and waterways shouting "we have your carrots and fish, you cannot claim you own this land!"
theres more than one way to win a war than clinging onto your flawed idea that you should have some inalienable right to sov lazer someting from 250km's away. |
GeeShizzle MacCloud
537
|
Posted - 2015.03.10 16:03:52 -
[10] - Quote
Dave Stark wrote:
anyway as i said; i have no issue with having to be <25km to capture a node, i have 0 issue with that. however having no way to prevent a capture outside of 25km is something i think may be an issue. as long as you can prevent a capture while on grid that's fine. once you've gained control of the grid you can do your victory dance within 25km of the node.
sorry i have to quote this because its priceless, even without the t2 entosis link there are many ways of preventing entosis links working and many ways of constantly disrupting entosis links from running.
in fact every single one of those methods increases the chance and opportunity to both extend the engagement and tug of war out of the defenders preferred time zone and to spawn further command nodes that actually increase the aggressive sniping kiters chance of victory.
Of course this means that you have to sacrifice a few pilots to fly something slightly different than a single hull that comprises 90% of your fleet meta. god forbid you attempt to diversify your ship chice and consider a combined arms approach! |
GeeShizzle MacCloud
537
|
Posted - 2015.03.10 17:10:32 -
[11] - Quote
Dave Stark wrote:
for the sake of discussion, please list them so i can respond to each and every one.
if a defender is willing to just feed ships in to a meat grinder faster than you can kill them and you have 0 way to pause the progress - you lose by default.
edit: also in the post you quoted i perhaps should have said "pause" not "prevent" but oh well. pause is closer to what i meant.
well lets negate the fact most weapon systems can deal dps beyond the 25km range you harp on about and talk about non damage specific examples being both ECM and Ewar, and inclusive of that it also makes the once irrelevant lockbreaker bomb somewhat worthwhile as a somewhat viable ecm burst. additionaly to that is actual ecm bursts that can be fitted on ceptors that can land ecm burst and warp off pretty much without getting caught
and considering the second point you made, forces are strong in their ability to do the heavy lifting and provide the logistics to heel the war machine rolling are part and parcel of what makes an occupying force dominant enough to occupy. Your entirely assumed idea that a force that has both the strength of willpower and resource might to keep reshipping and keep at the objective regardless of losses is a show of dominance and strength. Brave are a prime example of that where other lesser orgs have not had the determination that they possess.
and finally yes pause and prevent are two different things, and you should be mindful where you use either, as one is a complete denial of one thing over another and the other is a temporary scenario that trends towards a conclusion. |
GeeShizzle MacCloud
537
|
Posted - 2015.03.10 17:31:53 -
[12] - Quote
Dave Stark wrote:
it should simply be the case that the capture of a node should not happen until only one man is left standing on the grid; as such unless you can pause an attackers progress, or a defender's progress one will inevitably win regardless of who is left standing at the end not that i think that's good or bad one way or the other but it goes against the idea fozzie said he's working to.
anyway nearly time to leave the office.
well clearly fozzie saw a potential stalemate situation which is why there's a clause built in that more command nodes spawn if the tug of war engagement continues on for an extended period of time. A situation i might add that is advantageous to the kiting sniper fleet looking to kill more and more ships to further hinder and halt the progress of securing an objective.
less ships on a node = increased ability for you to kill jam ecm burst, bomb and otherwise disrupt and halt progress. |
GeeShizzle MacCloud
537
|
Posted - 2015.03.10 19:48:30 -
[13] - Quote
Mike Azariah wrote:Querns wrote:Eli Apol wrote:Many many alts post here, why not me, what've I done wrong? Argued my points? Pointed out inconsistencies in yours? Boohoo, #dealwithit  Putting aside the shockingly poor quality of your posting in this thread, it's always curious to me why people "post on alts" on eve-o, when posting on a character with real, demonstrable credibility is so much more powerful. Why should CCP listen to a person in a highsec salvaging corp for opinions on sov? Because they should give everyone a fair chance to prove they are idiots before ignoring them. m
i was soo close to thinking "oh god here comes the everyone should have a fair and equal chance to express their opinions..." splurge.
Thanks mike for not pandering to that totally bullsh*t hypocracy :)
+1 |
GeeShizzle MacCloud
537
|
Posted - 2015.03.10 19:52:15 -
[14] - Quote
Borachon wrote:
If Fozzie would give us some actual base stats, we might be able to actually make progress here, discussing concrete proposals and tweaks. As it is, though, the basically-contentless initial post in this thread looks more and more like him trolling the entire community than anything else.
^^ totally this |
GeeShizzle MacCloud
538
|
Posted - 2015.03.10 20:00:36 -
[15] - Quote
i honestly think the ISD guys should get a raise as of late.
or at least a lot of free beers from players at fanfest for al their work clearing out all the dreck from these threads. |
GeeShizzle MacCloud
538
|
Posted - 2015.03.10 20:25:06 -
[16] - Quote
afkalt wrote:Amyclas Amatin wrote:Sigras wrote:Really this whole thread is trying to answer one question, what is "effective military control"?
If I have 20 battleships and 10 guardians on grid and you have 30 vagabonds and 10 scimitars on grid who has "effective military control"? Sure I cant catch you, but you cannot come near my fleet or you die.
Does a super kite-y fleet with the ability to run away exert military control?
The biggest problem is that the answer to that question IS going to effect the fleet meta out in 0.0 and there is no getting around that. You have 20 battleships and 10 guardians on one one system. You have no presence in another 5 systems of the constellation but somehow feel entitled to "hold" them. Fixed that there.
he never said that was the extent of his forces, just that was the forces on that current contested grid.
but don't let that slant your viewpoint or let you massage what was said to allow you to repeat some parroted line like a lobotomised meth addict. |
GeeShizzle MacCloud
538
|
Posted - 2015.03.10 20:45:19 -
[17] - Quote
totally not a troll post at all...
if you start an entosis module cycling then at the end of the module cycle, if its unsucessfull in any way you get the dreaded Entosis FATIGUE! where you cant re engage an entosis module for 45 minutes and you cannot post on the eve-o forums for a day.
lol! |
GeeShizzle MacCloud
539
|
Posted - 2015.03.10 22:47:30 -
[18] - Quote
FYI u should all use the downtime when ISD's clear threads to make your observations clear to CCP fozzie by tweeting your ideas / observations and criticisms to him on twitter as it seems he is more likely to respond there then he is on an actual thread he created in order to entertain himself playing novelty psychiatrist in a personal sociopathic experiment.
You should all append your tweet with @CCP_Fozzie |
GeeShizzle MacCloud
540
|
Posted - 2015.03.10 23:27:17 -
[19] - Quote
Erasmus Grant wrote:GeeShizzle MacCloud wrote:FYI u should all use the downtime when ISD's clear threads to make your observations clear to CCP fozzie by tweeting your ideas / observations and criticisms to him on twitter as it seems he is more likely to respond there then he is on an actual thread he created in order to entertain himself playing novelty psychiatrist in a personal sociopathic experiment.
You should all append your tweet with @CCP_Fozzie Why are you going after him if he just doing what he is told to do?
Because firstly this breakout thread should have appeared over 4 days earlier than it should, secondly CCP fozzie said this thread should have been a more targeted discussion on the Entosis module and it could have been if he had given us a good baasis to start the conversation on balancing such a module but we barely know the mechanics of how it should function based off of the design document CCP Fozzie most likely has in his possession.
A huuuge proportion of this thread is total conjecture and then argumentative assumptions after argumentative assumptions built upon that.
Massive amounts of energy, time, commitment and willpower has been leveraged by the player base to argue over this and even after multiple requests for CCP Fozzie to clarify the initial proposal has been made... absolutely nothing.
Yet ISD's have to slog over these threads deleting tolling, inflammatory posts and wild retorts built around complete hypothetical assumptions. all because CCP Fozzie cannot spend 15 more minutes clarifying some aspects of the module from an initial design idea. I mean this has been something CCP has been researching and putting ideas together for near on half a decade, discussing it with multiple CSM delegations and pooling quite possibly millions of man hours of player feedback on throughout the years.
Yet we get an initial targeted post that that clarifies practically nothing more than we received in the inital dev blog, only a promise that if stuff seems like it may become too powerful or stray too far for core principles well use our toolkit to reel it back in. Well holy f**k batman, i thought u were gonna use a seance to change the code in the game. You guys are Computer entertainment developers after all right? |
GeeShizzle MacCloud
547
|
Posted - 2015.03.11 20:09:21 -
[20] - Quote
For the record, and because i believe it is a related and important topic to what is being discussed, i would love to have it stated and clarified beyond all reasonable doubt what CCP's policy on Grid-Fu is.
(Grid-Fu being the manipulation of grid walls/boundaries to either artificially inflate, shrink or otherwise shape a grid in a way as to provide tactical benefits) |
| |
|