| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 9 post(s) |
Marranar Amatin
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
0
   |
Posted - 2015.03.25 00:46:24 -
[1] - Quote
Veskrashen wrote:Death by annoyance is a valid concern, but that's basically the same as any other "keep them under pressure until they break" tactic
The important difference is they should break from the pressure because the attacker is willing to invest more into the fight. Because the fights are difficult and expensive. Never should the reason be that its simply too boring for the defender.
The solution should be in the direction of:
If the attacker can force the defender to respond, then the attacker MUST give the defender the chance to have some fun. Chasing t1 frigs or trollceptors around is probably no fun. Having a nice battle is fun. Getting nice killmails or expensive loot would probably also qualify as fun.
So one of many solutions would be:
1. You can fit this module anywhere you like, but it costs a lot
2. You cant use mwd or cloak or warp for some time when using entosis
Then you can still attack with whatever you like, but since you force the defender to come, you are also forced to fight since you cant escape anymore. And the defender will always have the chance to get something from defending, either a nice fight if you brought more ships, or at least a nice killmail or loot.
|
Marranar Amatin
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
2
|
Posted - 2015.03.25 11:18:29 -
[2] - Quote
Veskrashen wrote:Marranar Amatin wrote:
The important difference is they should break from the pressure because the attacker is willing to invest more into the fight. Because the fights are difficult and expensive. Never should the reason be that its simply too boring for the defender.
How many pilots, and how expensive?
More (or better ones) then the defender. I dont propose an arbitrary minimum for the number of attackers. All I am saying is that the attacker should only win if he actually fights better, not when he finds a way to bore the defender enough.
Price I would suggest about 200mil right now. 80 seems a bit too cheap to me, and for anyone really willing to attack 200 should not be a problem either.
Veskrashen wrote:Quote:So one of many solutions would be:
1. You can fit this module anywhere you like, but it costs a lot
2. You cant use mwd or cloak or warp for some time when using entosis Can't cloak, warp, or receive remote assistance while the link is active, and the T2 version should cost around 80mil apparently. Can't have an MWD penalty, since that invalidates kiting comps, which is against the stated design goals.
I used this example because there would be no need to change much to the original concept.
It is vital that the attacker cant run away. If he can simply run away, then we get an endless game of whack-a-mole. Of out-boring the enemy. That would be the worst result. If there is a solution that stops this and still allows kiting comps fine, but if there isnt, then its better to stop kiting comps then to allow the sov warface turn into a fight of boredom. Turning the mwd off simply would be the easiest solution... maybe there is another one. But it needs to include the possibility to catch an entosis ship that burns into a random direction with maximum speed, so one way or another, the kiting ability of the attacker has to be reduced.
This cant be stressed enough:
sov warfare must not turn into a game of trolling and out-boring the enemy
This is much more important then the viability of all comps. |
Marranar Amatin
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
2
|
Posted - 2015.03.25 12:15:19 -
[3] - Quote
I dont like the idea of forcing ships on grid very much. On the one hand its artificial as you said, on the other hand it probably does not even solve the problem. You still will have hard time to catch a trollceptor until whatever timer runs out and he can leave.
Limiting the speed would probably work. That big ships still can kite should not be a problem, since they can be caught anyway. But is also feels a little artificial. Also, depending on the speed, it probably would mean that there still are a few setups that you cant stop.
For example a t3 destroyer fit for speed. Without checking eft, I assume it is possible to make a setup where either your ship wont be fast enough to catch the attacker before he can warp, or which is faster but will get killed very fast, so you cant even fight him 2v1, since the tackle will die before the damage arrives.
So for that to work, the speed limit probably has to be quite low. |
Marranar Amatin
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
2
|
Posted - 2015.03.25 12:28:53 -
[4] - Quote
@afkalt: Because all these solutions basically consist of out-boring the enemy.
Its supposed to be fun, its supposed to generate fights. An active ally should be excited that they get attacked, not annoyed.
|
Marranar Amatin
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
2
|
Posted - 2015.03.25 13:38:20 -
[5] - Quote
afkalt wrote:If they are out to troll you, troll 'em right back. Even a moderately upgraded system makes this pretty easy. They'll waste active pilot time and more of it when you waste...12 minutes out a sensor damped alts otherwise inactive evening. I doubt that'll go on for more than 6 weeks (after sov readjusts itself) before people get bored and you see the serious attempts pretty much in exclusivity.
That is exactly what I - and I assume many others - do NOT want to see. No troll warfare where you troll each other until one side gets bored of it.
That you assume that the attacker will get bored faster (which I doubt) does not help at all. Its still a game of troll your enemy until he is bored and leaves. And if the attacker is more determined to troll the enemy he still wins by out-boring, even if you assume that he wastes more time.
|
Marranar Amatin
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
2
|
Posted - 2015.03.25 14:21:52 -
[6] - Quote
I do not see how forcing the attacker to actually take a fight, will stop him from taking empty systems. If there is no one to defend then not being able to flee would not bother him at all.
And again: that both side have to waste time is not a good argument. No one should have to waste time. The fact that the attacker is willing to waste more time should not allow him to win. |
Marranar Amatin
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
4
|
Posted - 2015.03.25 17:14:25 -
[7] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote:On the subject of trolling, interceptors, and people running away from an attack.
It seems to me like the easiest way to deal with people running away isn't to nerf kiting fits or apply a hard speed limit anywhere. That kills viable builds. If someone brings an Inty and you can't bring another Inty or two to chase them down then you kind of deserve to lose your space. I mean, that's a T2 Frigate, it takes about a month to train into one at a decent level, and you can fly one perfectly well inside of six months. At that point it's a case of simply who flies better, and if you have a friend then two people should be able to box in one Inty.
The easiest way to stop people from running is what the Entosis Link already does, which is prevent people from warping off. The question is whether or not the 2 minute timer on the T2 EL is going to be enough for activating the link to represent a serious threat to an Inty pilot.
Anyone have some hard numbers along these lines? Or, failing that, opinions on what it would take for an Inty pilot to be catchable by 1-3 responding pilots?
The problem is that you can not catch the trollceptor. Without a tremendous amount of luck there is no way. You can bring 10 guys and you probably still cant catch him.
Without any limitations through the entosis, the interceptor is as fast as you are. And he has about 100km headstart due to his 120km orbit. So you wont catch up.
You would have to place millions of bookmarks and bring lots of people so you can attack from many directions at once. But it would be just stupid if thats the requirement to catch a single attacker. If the attacker only brings one guy, you should be able to catch him with also one guy. |
| |
|