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) |
Anthar Thebess
953
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 13:42:03 -
[31] - Quote
Can we somehow make ship using this sov capture module immune to ewar?
Simple example how this module can be easily disabled , even when someone have control over a grid: - drop lock braking bomb. - jam using T1 ship from 200km - damp to cut off targeting range.
This tactics can be benefit in some way to this mechanic , but at the same time allow 1 person having tons of book marks around the structure to block any progress even when control over a grid is long lost.
Capital Remote AID Rebalance
Way to solve important nullsec issue. CSM members do your work.
|
Phoenix Jones
Isogen 5
1138
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 13:42:18 -
[32] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote: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?
What's stopping you from killing said interceptor.
I get the point but it goes both ways. Ultimately a interceptor is probably too strong of a ship for this module to be used with.
Yaay!!!!
|
xttz
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
449
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 13:42:50 -
[33] - Quote
Fozzie, what was the intention of not allowing remote assistance while using Entosis Links?
If it was to curb the extremes of armour/shield-tanking that would require specialised fleets to deal with, the same logic should apply to speed-tanking. While an Entosis Link is active the ship should either have a significant signature radius penalty, or not be able to activate propulsion mods at all. |
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
12058
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 13:43:20 -
[34] - Quote
Phoenix Jones wrote: What's stopping you from killing said interceptor.
I was answering the claim of the guy who said you didn't have to.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
1392
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 13:43:25 -
[35] - Quote
I guess I don't understand why it seems so difficult to take a position on the main issue, here. This update spends a lot of time talking about the balance team's ability to make changes to counter undesired gameplay. I don't think that was ever in doubt; anyone paying attention knows that the balance team has a large toolkit. What we want to know is your intentions GÇö do you plan to nerf entosis interceptors or not?
This issue is so fundamental that it poisons any other potential discussion on the topic of New Sov. Without a clear position on this one subject, none of the rest of the work that has been done has any fundamental meaning. This is a very harsh thing for me to say, but I can't really put it any more gently than this. For this, I apologize, but it has to be said for any forward progress to be made.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Primary This Rifter
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
717
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 13:43:31 -
[36] - Quote
The nature of entosis links is going to push alliances into very rigid doctrines that won't change except in the case of rebalancing. People will get bored of this very quickly.
Reminder: CCP thinks you have no right to your alliance logos.
|
Amyclas Amatin
SUNDERING Goonswarm Federation
634
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 13:44:32 -
[37] - Quote
Amyclas Amatin wrote: Put it this way. If sending 500 suicide alts to Entosis something is a viable strategy, we will do it.
Lack of remote reps don't mean anything to a super-power. If we will sacrifice Triage Carriers and Siege dreads, we will sacrifice any other ship, and in a much larger scale.
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?"
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
12058
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 13:44:45 -
[38] - Quote
Primary This Rifter wrote:The nature of entosis links is going to push alliances into very rigid doctrines that won't change except in the case of rebalancing. People will get bored of this very quickly.
Yep. Interceptors, and whatever counter they can devise against interceptors. Probably more interceptors.
Hey, isn't that the exact same problem people have with capitals? That their only counter is themselves?
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
865
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 13:45:00 -
[39] - Quote
You need to make who is using a link appear on the overview (like scrams/ewar to players do at the moment).
A purely "visual" effect will be impossible to get a hold of the right ship to target.
We also need some clarity on the following points (there are probably more) >How will warping be blocked >Does this affect MJDs/MWDs (i.e. is it a scram or a point effect) >What happens if the ship loses lock >Capital cycle time was discussed to be longer - is the capture time also longer >Will cynoing OUT with an active link be allowed i.e. does this fully "tackle" caps and supers too? >Are other high slot mods blocked at the time the link is active - bastion/triage/etc/etc
Also - make the module drop rate 100% - encourage hunting non-committal attempts to troll. It'll pay better than ratting |
Makari Aeron
The Shadow's Of Eve TSOE Consortium
210
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 13:45:10 -
[40] - Quote
The module itself i have no problem with. Sure, I prefer the old HP based system because I loved shooting at a structure for hours while BSing with my friends on Teamspeak. C'est la vie. That's not the point here.
However, I would limit the number of links on a structure to only a handful per alliance. Otherwise you're going to get every ship in the fleet with one so it takes forever to ensure the other side can't attack the sov later. In addition, I would recommend only ONE structure per solar system to be able to have an entosis link at a time. One the cycle is over, you can move to another one. This would eliminate the "bonus" large groups get when they can simply blitz all the structures in every system.
I'm more concerned over the "vulnerability" window which can be manipulated over DT to reduce the time players have to do the minigame. I'm also unsure about the mini-game. Honestly, if I wanted to do FW-esque stuff, I'd go to FW space and I woldn't be in nullsec. Also, this seems like this mini-game favors big blobs and thus does not help smaller groups gain sov as the dev blog would like to suggest.
All in all, while this may be seen as a good attempt to fix sov, I disagree. This does give a reason to OWN sov. The "you can make so much money doing anoms" is a terrible answer. You can make money in others sov space and force them out. Therefore I do not see this as a "positive" reason. Also, most alliances make their money off of renting systems or moon goo both of which are only loosely tied to sov.
CCP RedDawn: Ugly people are just playing life on HARD mode. Personally, I'm playing on an INFERNO difficulty.
CCP Goliath: I often believe that the best way to get something done is to shout at the person trying to help you. http://goo.gl/PKGDP
|
|
Arkon Olacar
Bearded BattleBears Brave Collective
494
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 13:45:12 -
[41] - Quote
Jaro Essa 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. 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?. Sure, but no progress in either direction would be made while both links were active. You just reach a stalemate, where your fleet is rendered useless by a single interceptor, burning at 7-8km/s at 100-150km. That's just dumb mechanics.
Warping to zero
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
1397
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 13:45:47 -
[42] - Quote
To be more clear; "yes" is a perfectly valid answer to the question of "can interceptors fit the entosis link?" It's the NOT KNOWING that is poisoning the conversation.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
867
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 13:46:04 -
[43] - Quote
Anya Solette wrote: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.
Because totally no-one runs smartbomb camps. No-one.
These will definitely not increase in popularity if snaked pods become "normal". Nope. |
Quesa
Burning Napalm Northern Coalition.
53
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 13:46:19 -
[44] - 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. Yet again, this doesn't fit the effective military control of the grid. |
davet517
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
57
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 13:46:24 -
[45] - Quote
So, sounds to me like what you really have in mind is inviting the coalitions to fight more often by lowering their risk. For the past year, they haven't wanted to fight because B-R was just too damn expensive.
Taking military control of a grid will just come down to who can throw the most numbers at it, and afford the most entosis links, to, as someone said above, "suicide". Taking control of ten connected systems at once, well, who does that favor?
It might instigate more fights, and more system ping-pong, because it'll cost less than risking the loss of many titans and supers.
The "trollcepter" is a troll. Don't fall for the bait. In a system that is empty, or one that is occupied by renters that dock up every time they see a neutral in local, they'd be effective, and they ought to be. In defended systems where the defenders have a clue, they won't, and they certainly won't be for actually capturing anything. |
xttz
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
449
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 13:46:43 -
[46] - Quote
Arkon Olacar wrote: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.
I'm curious to know if CCP have considered different sizes of Entosis Link. For example:
Small Entosis Link (frigates / destroyers): 25km-40km range Medium Entosis Link (cruisers / BCs): 40km-75km range Large Entosis Link (battleships): 75-125km range XL Entosis Link (capitals): 125km+ range |
Andrea Keuvo
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
309
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 13:47:13 -
[47] - Quote
You have two huge issues you need to address for sure before this stuff goes live:
1. If some linked nano 7km/s ship can operate this module people will abuse it.
2. If blobbing with 200 jamming frigs can prevent a non-blob entity from activating their Entosis links the blobbing entities will abuse it.
After you figure these things out can you think about how you will rebalance anomalies in nullsec to make it actually worth living there and to make systems below -.5 truesec actually able to support enough pilots for an occupancy based sov system to be viable?
|
Carniflex
StarHunt Mordus Angels
311
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 13:48:14 -
[48] - Quote
Trollceptor will not be an issue. All it takes to kill one is some pre-made bookmarks around his sov structure by the defender and a 15 mil destroyer.
It will be only a "issue" if there is no one present in local but in that case it is already irrelevant what kind of ship is used for attack as the defender is not present anyway to contest it.
Here, sanity... niiiice sanity, come to daddy... okay, that's a good sanity... THWONK!
GOT the bastard.
|
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
867
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 13:48:45 -
[49] - Quote
Quesa wrote: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. Yet again, this doesn't fit the effective military control of the grid.
Neither does not being able to kill an interceptor. |
Dave Stark
7410
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 13:49:07 -
[50] - Quote
Assassn Gallic wrote: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.
when i said "stop it" i meant "it" as caputring sov, not "it" as the ship. |
|
LT Alter
Dodixie Undock Is Camped
141
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 13:49:26 -
[51] - Quote
Amyclas Amatin wrote: Put it this way. If sending 500 suicide alts to Entosis something is a viable strategy, we will do it.
While I understand your point of 'anything to win', even with current mechanics you'll never be able to send suicide fleets with the entotis link to win. All the enemy has to do is contest with 1 entosis link and suddenly your 500 are not doing anything.
This is one of the good things with the idea of the entosis link, it's less of a numbers war than it used to be. Number will always affect the outcome but you can't just win by having more alts than me. (An ironic statement for me to make since I'm on the higher end when it comes to number of alt accounts). |
Arkon Olacar
Bearded BattleBears Brave Collective
494
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 13:49:52 -
[52] - Quote
Carniflex wrote:Trollceptor will not be an issue. All it takes to kill one is some pre-made bookmarks around his sov structure by the defender and a 15 mil destroyer.
It will be only a "issue" if there is no one present in local but in that case it is already irrelevant what kind of ship is used for attack as the defender is not present anyway to contest it. Because of all the premade bookmarks people will have around a randomly generated command node amirite
Warping to zero
|
Jaro Essa
Dahkur Forge
13
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 13:50:32 -
[53] - Quote
Arkon Olacar wrote: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? You shouldn't give a crap. Nor should you cry about it either. Just bring one guy in a Maulus. |
Carniflex
StarHunt Mordus Angels
311
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 13:50:38 -
[54] - Quote
Andrea Keuvo wrote:You have two huge issues you need to address for sure before this stuff goes live:
1. If some linked nano 7km/s ship can operate this module people will abuse it.
2. If blobbing with 200 jamming frigs can prevent a non-blob entity from activating their Entosis links the blobbing entities will abuse it.
After you figure these things out can you think about how you will rebalance anomalies in nullsec to make it actually worth living there and to make systems below -.5 truesec actually able to support enough pilots for an occupancy based sov system to be viable?
If one side brings 200 ships to fight a smaller number of opposing ships he should have some advantage. There is ways around 200 jamming/damping ships. Snipers, for example as ECM range is limited.
Here, sanity... niiiice sanity, come to daddy... okay, that's a good sanity... THWONK!
GOT the bastard.
|
Quesa
Burning Napalm Northern Coalition.
53
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 13:51:10 -
[55] - Quote
I have always believed that there needs to be a risk to the asset deployed for the taking/defending of sovereignty to be a worthwhile process for both attacker and defender. Trollcepters don't really risk an asset to mess with Sov as they are incredibly fast warping and nullfied. These two attributes combined on a ship offer an incredible amount of power if they are also able to exert sovereignty pressure with the proposed system.
I would suggest that a few modifications be made to the Entosis mod that will disallow the use of any prop mod OR be locked in place for the duration of the Entosis cycle (much like a cyno). This would force an attacker/defender to risk an asset, which is and has to continue to be part of the sovereignty mechanics. Even if the above were implimented, it would not hamper ones ability to take sov from an AFK alliance. |
Schluffi Schluffelsen
State War Academy Caldari State
30
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 13:52:08 -
[56] - Quote
Constructive and well written post, Fozzie, let's give some specific feedback.
1. the biggest issue I can see is a range of 250km of the T2 variation. It's a) not in line with the usual T1/T2 differences (a 10x better main attribute) and b) is it messing up with the "control" of the grid. Limiting the T1 version to 50km and the T2 version to 75km is keeping everything on fightable grid, removing the need for sniper entosis and anti-snipers. This is also going to remove the biggest issues with small-scale ships trolling around, any halfway-decent sov holder should be able to deal with this and this also forces people to bring a fleet capable of fighting a skirmish over the structure (attacker and defender).
2. shipclass restriction: Given the amount of modules introduced the past months like bastion mode which are even hull-specific, I don't think it wouldn't be too restricting to boost certain less loved ships in Eve and give them a meaningful role. On the other hand I do get why you don't want to restrict it but you could just limit the entosis link range.
3. Drone boats - sorry to say this but this is just another "module" that'll favor any drone based boat over others due to availability of utility highslots. Either rebalance other hulls to be able to fit a entosis link without killing of a good share of their dps or put a drone malus on the entosis link itself. We've been living in Ishtar Online way too long for now :)
4. In my personal opinion, there should be a certain degree of teamplay involved with sov structures - not a single person deploying a TP-like mod on a structure. I'd rather favor a system where more links have to be applied or where structures have a certain "entosis-resistance" bonus that can be overcome with more links - but a limit of how many (stacking penalty like on modules) - and the minimum time it'll take to grind it down is the one suggested in the dev blog (so 42 minutes for a fully upgraded system).
This would mean it encourages people to bring at least 3-4 entosis linked ships to get the best timer but a blob of 100 entosis links wouldn't make a difference. This should encourage small but efficient fleets to grind structures and provide content for both attacker and defender. In combination with a decreased entosis link range it'd mean good on-grid action with less trolling (warping off and on grid). |
Red Teufel
Brutal Deliverance
433
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 13:52:29 -
[57] - Quote
I really do like how the new sov mechanics work. I kind of wish instead of letting us know ahead of time you would have just applied it to the game immediately and told us "good luck." |
Tora Bushido
EVE Corporation 987654321-POP The Marmite Collective
2034
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 13:53:25 -
[58] - Quote
Just disable reps and microwarps when using it. Then ship size would matter as much.
TORA FOR CSM X - A NEW HIGH-SEC
YOU EITHER LOVE US OR WE HATE YOU - DELETE THE WEAK , ADAPT OR DIE !
|
Quesa
Burning Napalm Northern Coalition.
53
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 13:53:29 -
[59] - Quote
afkalt wrote:Quesa wrote: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. Yet again, this doesn't fit the effective military control of the grid. Neither does not being able to kill an interceptor. Chasing an intercepter off the grid is an example of military control so in a way, yeah it is. |
Carniflex
StarHunt Mordus Angels
311
|
Posted - 2015.03.09 13:54:03 -
[60] - Quote
afkalt wrote:Quesa wrote: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. Yet again, this doesn't fit the effective military control of the grid. Neither does not being able to kill an interceptor.
Standard MOA doctrine cormorant can kill a snaked interceptor. That is a 15 mil fit. All it takes is few well placed bookmarks around the structure, just hop to a right mark where its transversal is lower than it thinks it is and pop it in 2..3 volleys. Remember, it cant warp while the link is active.
Here, sanity... niiiice sanity, come to daddy... okay, that's a good sanity... THWONK!
GOT the bastard.
|
|
|
|
|
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 |