EVE Search - Sticky:[Discussion] Entosis Link Tactics and Ship Balance

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Sticky:[Discussion] Entosis Link Tactics and Ship Balance

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

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)
Pooptasticize Imperial Academy Amarr Empire 2	Posted - 2015.03.10 00:53:40 - [1111] - Quote Alavaria Fera wrote: What about instead of just "1 link and that's it", you changed it to "more than one link counts, but only up to.. 5" Not an unlimited N+1, but one which caps at a low enough level that a small gang will easily be above it if they wanted. This means a troll attempt needs a few more people. (and a single person really shouldn't be "effective military control of the grid" anyway) Defense trolling, also will now need more than just one to tie up a node. Why not you need 5 to start the process? No faster for additional, nothing gained by having fewer.
Lena Lazair Khanid Irregulars Khanid's Legion 424	Posted - 2015.03.10 00:54:18 - [1112] - Quote Veskrashen wrote: If defenders are plinking away at unmanned structures, they're not shooting at other players. You also aren't shooting at other players while running a defensive e-link to lock out an orbiting inty that you can't hit. Veskrashen wrote: The idea is to shoot other players and have "active military control of the grid". If it doesn't require you to be on grid with it to work, it doesn't fit that design goal. If you were the last person on grid, dropped a deployable, and left, your (deployable) still has active military control of the grid. It's still trivial for a single small ship to come contest this control if you leave it undefended. Veskrashen wrote: If you have to be on grid for it to work, it's far better off to be a module than a deployable. If it's a module rather than a deployable it's your butt at risk, not a cheap deployable you can bugger off from at any point in time. The point is that this obsession that you have to be on-grid to run an e-link is what is leading to all the theorycrafting around troll-y fits, and all the special exemptions/mechanics necessary in the e-link module to prevent those troll-y fits. If we just make it a deployable with fixed stats it's a lot easier to balance how abusively it can be used, since we are no longer talking about balancing out the endless creativity of EVE ship fits. No ACTUAL sov contest will work without controlling the grid anyway, since if you aren't on grid to defend a deployable it's not going to win. Possible addition to deployable mechanics to further reinforce this point: if the deployable is taking ANY damage, its cycle pauses. Also, I have no intention of the deployable being cheap. I'm thinking the T2 price; 100m or so. Since you can re-scoop it if you win, this is fine for the control node sov contests, etc... but if you troll and someone interrupts you, the 100m KM from a deployable is actually far MORE risk than the 15m inty you put at risk to get it there (which will almost never be caught, merely chased off, so no KM's with e-link modules ever). Veskrashen wrote: Besides, that'd make your fearsome Trollceptors even more Trolltastic - they're not even stuck on grid for the 2 minutes Entosis Link cycle time, after all. They'd be able to cause infinitely more damage with a deployable sov item. That'd be a horrific idea, wouldn't it? Again, one deployed per pilot is probably a reasonable limitation, and actually puts the troll-er at high risk of wasting time (as per my point about dropping defensive deployables to deadlock it until they come back in a previous reply). Though to avoid permanently locking those poor inty trolls down, I'd suggest a maximum lifetime on the deployable of 1 to 2 hours before it self-destructs, whether it has finished its cycle or not (so you can only lock down a troll pilot from deploying more for a few hours, rather than indefinitely).
Alavaria Fera GoonWaffe 6601	Posted - 2015.03.10 00:57:11 - [1113] - Quote Pooptasticize wrote: Alavaria Fera wrote: What about instead of just "1 link and that's it", you changed it to "more than one link counts, but only up to.. 5" Not an unlimited N+1, but one which caps at a low enough level that a small gang will easily be above it if they wanted. This means a troll attempt needs a few more people. (and a single person really shouldn't be "effective military control of the grid" anyway) Defense trolling, also will now need more than just one to tie up a node. Why not you need 5 to start the process? No faster for additional, nothing gained by having fewer. I'll be honest, I like the idea of "if there's no one, you can just shotgun like mad". But I also like the idea of "oh it's just one, we can send two people to deal with it" etc etc. I'll even say I want to do this in ladyscarlet's rental empire (hi northernassociates!!!)... so it's for that kind of selfish reason ^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears. Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
Veskrashen Justified Chaos Spaceship Bebop 761	Posted - 2015.03.10 00:57:54 - [1114] - Quote Alavaria Fera wrote: What about instead of just "1 link and that's it", you changed it to "more than one link counts, but only up to.. 5" Not an unlimited N+1, but one which caps at a low enough level that a small gang will easily be above it if they wanted. This means a troll attempt needs a few more people. (and a single person really shouldn't be "effective military control of the grid" anyway) Defense trolling, also will now need more than just one to tie up a node. Still doesn't require "military control of the grid", since you just have to have more max evasion Trollceptors on grid than the other guy. Bringing more dudes should not = autowin just because you have more dudes. Sure, have more Links active if you want to. You should still have to kill off / force off field all the Links that they have to make progress. We Gallente have a saying: "CCP created the Gallente Militia to train the Fighters..."
Alavaria Fera GoonWaffe 6601	Posted - 2015.03.10 00:59:32 - [1115] - Quote Veskrashen wrote: Alavaria Fera wrote: What about instead of just "1 link and that's it", you changed it to "more than one link counts, but only up to.. 5" Not an unlimited N+1, but one which caps at a low enough level that a small gang will easily be above it if they wanted. This means a troll attempt needs a few more people. (and a single person really shouldn't be "effective military control of the grid" anyway) Defense trolling, also will now need more than just one to tie up a node. Still doesn't require "military control of the grid", since you just have to have more max evasion Trollceptors on grid than the other guy. Bringing more dudes should not = autowin just because you have more dudes. Sure, have more Links active if you want to. You should still have to kill off / force off field all the Links that they have to make progress. Yes, that's right. Currently, you only need one, no matter if the other side has 100 people. At least with this, you would need 5 (again even if they have 100 people) So instead of 1...1 you also have 2>1, 3>2... 5>4, but then it's just 5.... same reasoning for the cap as current, just a cap of 5 instead of 1. Or you can pick some other positive integer that sounds nice. Not too big though. ^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears. Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
Arrendis GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 317	Posted - 2015.03.10 01:00:33 - [1116] - Quote Alavaria Fera wrote: Even if you can't link the killmail, name and shame please. Er if it was a newbie with salvage especially let us know... Like 2 hours ago in TXME. MOA's little bomber roam dropped on him.
Alavaria Fera GoonWaffe 6601	Posted - 2015.03.10 01:01:19 - [1117] - Quote Arrendis wrote: Alavaria Fera wrote: Even if you can't link the killmail, name and shame please. Er if it was a newbie with salvage especially let us know... Like 2 hours ago in TXME. MOA's little bomber roam dropped on him. Er, so it was a newbie, or? Wait no newbie should be hauling that much, what was in it ^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears. Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
Zazad Antollare Enlightened Industries Goonswarm Federation 0	Posted - 2015.03.10 01:02:24 - [1118] - Quote **** idea incoming i like the idea of the thing beeing like a deployable but as someone said they could carpet bomb a region really easily with almost zero risk, so why not make it like a drone? you have to be on grid and control it so it doesn't get blown up.
Alavaria Fera GoonWaffe 6601	Posted - 2015.03.10 01:03:06 - [1119] - Quote Zazad Antollare wrote: **** idea incoming i like the idea of the thing beeing like a deployable but as someone said they could carpet bomb a region really easily with almost zero risk, so why not make it like a drone? you have to be on grid and control it so it doesn't get blown up. Instead of an entosis module, an entosis drone huh... But some ships don't have any drone bay. And I guess with ishtars online, they would also be able to carry a bunch. Though you don't get blockade runners using them. ^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears. Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
Veskrashen Justified Chaos Spaceship Bebop 761	Posted - 2015.03.10 01:04:34 - [1120] - Quote Lena Lazair wrote: If you were the last person on grid, dropped a deployable, and left, your (deployable) still has active military control of the grid. It's still trivial for a single small ship to come contest this control if you leave it undefended. No, you have PASSIVE control over the grid, in that there is noone actively on grid controlling it. The ability to passively control the grid and passively gain control over the sov structure is not a mechanic that I think would be a good one to implement - even with the restriction of "one deployable per pilot". Lena Lazair wrote: The point is that this obsession that you have to be on-grid to run an e-link is what is leading to all the theorycrafting around troll-y fits, and all the special exemptions/mechanics necessary in the e-link module to prevent those troll-y fits. If we just make it a deployable with fixed stats it's a lot easier to balance how abusively it can be used, since we are no longer talking about balancing out the endless creativity of EVE ship fits. That's actually one of Fozzie's design goals - requiring active control of the grid. It requires pilots to be in space, active and vulnerable - and forces other pilots to be in space, active, and vulnerable to counter their influence. Any mechanic where either the attacker or defender can effectively influence sov while AFK in a POS or cloaked up or in another system entirely runs counter to that design principle. We Gallente have a saying: "CCP created the Gallente Militia to train the Fighters..."

Zazad Antollare Enlightened Industries Goonswarm Federation 0	Posted - 2015.03.10 01:04:45 - [1121] - Quote Alavaria Fera wrote: Zazad Antollare wrote: **** idea incoming i like the idea of the thing beeing like a deployable but as someone said they could carpet bomb a region really easily with almost zero risk, so why not make it like a drone? you have to be on grid and control it so it doesn't get blown up. Instead of an entosis module, an entosis drone huh... But some ships don't have any drone bay. you would need a dedicated bay, or a module that creates one (like containers do)
Arrendis GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 317	Posted - 2015.03.10 01:06:03 - [1122] - Quote Alavaria Fera wrote: Arrendis wrote: Alavaria Fera wrote: Even if you can't link the killmail, name and shame please. Er if it was a newbie with salvage especially let us know... Like 2 hours ago in TXME. MOA's little bomber roam dropped on him. Er, so it was a newbie, or? Wait no newbie should be hauling that much, what was in it Oh, I don't know what was in the hauler, I was talking about the Damnation.
Veskrashen Justified Chaos Spaceship Bebop 761	Posted - 2015.03.10 01:09:01 - [1123] - Quote Alavaria Fera wrote: Zazad Antollare wrote: **** idea incoming i like the idea of the thing beeing like a deployable but as someone said they could carpet bomb a region really easily with almost zero risk, so why not make it like a drone? you have to be on grid and control it so it doesn't get blown up. Instead of an entosis module, an entosis drone huh... But some ships don't have any drone bay. And I guess with ishtars online, they would also be able to carry a bunch. Though you don't get blockade runners using them. Not to mention it doesn't pin you on grid like an active Entosis Link does. Anything that allows you to GTFO and abandon whatever expendable item whenever you choose - i.e. disengage at will - is not one that puts you at risk. We Gallente have a saying: "CCP created the Gallente Militia to train the Fighters..."
Justa Hunni State War Academy Caldari State 5	Posted - 2015.03.10 01:09:50 - [1124] - Quote rsantos wrote: Arkon Olacar wrote: Jessy Andersteen wrote: About the trollceptor. It's stupid. Ok, u can't kill the "trollceptor" but... Remember: targeting range of the interceptor. Put a single Maulus, hyena,keres, rapier, huggin, razzu or a griffin on the field... Bye bye trollceptor. Trollceptor is a troll. Don't feed the troll. Awesome. Hero owns 98 systems in Catch, and 38 stations. We now need 136 mauluses to spend 4 hours a night sitting on an ihub/station. Except of course if these trollceptors have any kind of weapons, it can kill the maulus, so we partner them with a RLML caracal to prevent that from happening. There, we've kept one of the most densely populated regions in the game save from trollceptors, and it only costs us 1088 man hours per night! If you can't muster 136 mauluses a night you own to much sov. As if quickly reshiping to a defense fleet would take 4 hours a day! This beeing said by a 15K man alliance makes me puke! Sry no offense intended. Spoken by a guy who doesn't own any sov but just likes jerking others around, makes me puke! sry no offense intended
Alavaria Fera GoonWaffe 6601	Posted - 2015.03.10 01:14:13 - [1125] - Quote Justa Hunni wrote: rsantos wrote: Arkon Olacar wrote: Jessy Andersteen wrote: About the trollceptor. It's stupid. Ok, u can't kill the "trollceptor" but... Remember: targeting range of the interceptor. Put a single Maulus, hyena,keres, rapier, huggin, razzu or a griffin on the field... Bye bye trollceptor. Trollceptor is a troll. Don't feed the troll. Awesome. Hero owns 98 systems in Catch, and 38 stations. We now need 136 mauluses to spend 4 hours a night sitting on an ihub/station. Except of course if these trollceptors have any kind of weapons, it can kill the maulus, so we partner them with a RLML caracal to prevent that from happening. There, we've kept one of the most densely populated regions in the game save from trollceptors, and it only costs us 1088 man hours per night! If you can't muster 136 mauluses a night you own to much sov. As if quickly reshiping to a defense fleet would take 4 hours a day! This beeing said by a 15K man alliance makes me puke! Sry no offense intended. Spoken by a guy who doesn't own any sov but just likes jerking others around, makes me puke! sry no offense intended This is eveo forums, people intend all sorts of offense. Especially against other people's sov... ^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears. Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
Alavaria Fera GoonWaffe 6601	Posted - 2015.03.10 01:15:37 - [1126] - Quote Veskrashen wrote: Alavaria Fera wrote: Zazad Antollare wrote: **** idea incoming i like the idea of the thing beeing like a deployable but as someone said they could carpet bomb a region really easily with almost zero risk, so why not make it like a drone? you have to be on grid and control it so it doesn't get blown up. Instead of an entosis module, an entosis drone huh... But some ships don't have any drone bay. And I guess with ishtars online, they would also be able to carry a bunch. Though you don't get blockade runners using them. Not to mention it doesn't pin you on grid like an active Entosis Link does. Anything that allows you to GTFO and abandon whatever expendable item whenever you choose - i.e. disengage at will - is not one that puts you at risk. Well i guess if you're worried about killboard stats. Otherwise losing an expensive thing ... ship or otherwise is still an issue. But making a drone would imply no killmail. A deployable would presumably give a killmail, so it shows up in your K:D ratio, isk efficiency and so on. ^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears. Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
Zazad Antollare Enlightened Industries Goonswarm Federation 0	Posted - 2015.03.10 01:16:19 - [1127] - Quote Veskrashen wrote: Not to mention it doesn't pin you on grid like an active Entosis Link does. Anything that allows you to GTFO and abandon whatever expendable item whenever you choose - i.e. disengage at will - is not one that puts you at risk. If you make it that you can only carry one per ship in a dedicated bay it makes you choose to either fight after deplying or run away and not doing anything else until you get another
Alavaria Fera GoonWaffe 6601	Posted - 2015.03.10 01:19:02 - [1128] - Quote I think they are obsessed with the idea that winning must lead to a killmail. Though in many cases it seems like the interceptor based approach would also give no killmail, so.... ^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears. Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
Zazad Antollare Enlightened Industries Goonswarm Federation 0	Posted - 2015.03.10 01:21:37 - [1129] - Quote i like when the the thing that makes sov war is detached from the ship so this way it doesnt get the "bonus" from the ship type you are flying
Alavaria Fera GoonWaffe 6601	Posted - 2015.03.10 01:22:17 - [1130] - Quote Ah, so it can't move around like the interceptor-based approach would allow. Good point. ^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears. Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.

Veskrashen Justified Chaos Spaceship Bebop 762	Posted - 2015.03.10 01:23:39 - [1131] - Quote Alavaria Fera wrote: Well i guess if you're worried about killboard stats. Otherwise losing an expensive thing ... ship or otherwise is still an issue. But making a drone would imply no killmail. A deployable would presumably give a killmail, so it shows up in your K:D ratio, isk efficiency and so on. I don't care about KBs per se. I care about a player being able to take or defend sov without being at risk. You know, what you all were so incensed about when you were rabble rabble about Trollceptors. I thought that problem would be obvious, but I guess it really does come down to the fact that Trollceptors can escape gatecamps. We Gallente have a saying: "CCP created the Gallente Militia to train the Fighters..."
Alavaria Fera GoonWaffe 6601	Posted - 2015.03.10 01:25:10 - [1132] - Quote Veskrashen wrote: Alavaria Fera wrote: Well i guess if you're worried about killboard stats. Otherwise losing an expensive thing ... ship or otherwise is still an issue. But making a drone would imply no killmail. A deployable would presumably give a killmail, so it shows up in your K:D ratio, isk efficiency and so on. I don't care about KBs per se. I care about a player being able to take or defend sov without being at risk. You know, what you all were so incensed about when you were rabble rabble about Trollceptors. I thought that problem would be obvious, but I guess it really does come down to the fact that Trollceptors can escape gatecamps. Putting the little (probably expensive) entosis thing at risk is putting something at risk. What you want is specifically "put a hull at risk" which is to say, you want to get killmail off it. ^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears. Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
Lena Lazair Khanid Irregulars Khanid's Legion 424	Posted - 2015.03.10 01:25:15 - [1133] - Quote Veskrashen wrote: No, you have PASSIVE control over the grid, in that there is noone actively on grid controlling it. The ability to passively control the grid and passively gain control over the sov structure is not a mechanic that I think would be a good one to implement - even with the restriction of "one deployable per pilot". Again, this is basically arguing semantics. My single deployable is as much "me" as the ship my pod is in. My deployable has active/passive/whatever you want to call it CONTROL OF THE GRID. The idea that my ship has to be in space and targetable to have grid control is an artificial restriction on the term that you are adding for no good reason. For any real battle, ships will have to be on grid to defend the deployable until it completes its job. This is literally no different than a ship running the e-link itself. For the various trolly/edge-cases, this 1) forces the troll to actually commit MORE risk to the attempt, 2) still allows for anyone with even a nominal ability to control/defend the grid to do so trivially and 3) gives the defenders actual tangible results for their effort (deployable KMs, rather than "hey guys I chased off another trollceptor"). The fact that it takes away the requirement for the trollceptor to remain on grid during the troll is totally irrelevant; the whole point of troll fits will be that they are never REALLY committing to being on grid in the first place. And if we add more limitations to the e-link to try and commit the trolls to actually remaining on grid, we'll just see brick-tanked six-WCS stabbed T3's or some other such nonsense STILL not realistically committing ANY risk/ISK to the troll. To avoid all the ways people can abuse ship fits to figure out ways to troll by not committing to the grid basically puts so many limitations on the module that having it fit to a ship becomes more and more irrelevant. Killing a 100m deployable is enough risk/reward for defending your space from a troll. We don't NEED to keep adding limitations on troll fits just to guarantee we can get a shiny KM on their ship if we show up to defend. Trying to do so is basically fighting an uphill battle against the creativity of EVE pilots everywhere and the incredibly dynamic range of possible ship fits. Who cares if the troll ship gets away? Veskrashen wrote: That's actually one of Fozzie's design goals - requiring active control of the grid. It requires pilots to be in space, active and vulnerable - and forces other pilots to be in space, active, and vulnerable to counter their influence. Any mechanic where either the attacker or defender can effectively influence sov while AFK in a POS or cloaked up or in another system entirely runs counter to that design principle. You are mistaking his design goal. Grid control only matters for people actually contesting ownership. e.g. when contesting ownership, whoever has grid control should win. A deployable that can be trivially killed/paused if you have grid control accomplishes this task just fine. However, the idea that this design goal is intended to force people to remain on grid if no one is defending the grid is taking it too literally and too far. If no one shows up to defend, it literally does not matter if I was on grid or not. At all. To anyone. There is absolute no merit in making the troll stay on grid if no one ever shows up to defend in the first place. Further, making them stay on grid doesn't actually increase their risk/committment in the slightest, as the entire basis of any troll fit ship will be make sure that risk is as low as possible in the first place in someone DOES show up. As far as risk goes, provided the deployable is expensive and impossible to scoop before the cycle finishes, it actually forces them to commit MORE risk/ISK to the attempt than any troll fit ship is going to cost.
Alavaria Fera GoonWaffe 6601	Posted - 2015.03.10 01:27:51 - [1134] - Quote Maybe they're actually worried about goons shotgunning all over the place and figure that requiring the ship to be tied up will deter us. I mean it isn't so much about risk, as making it boring for the attacker (they have to be there and watch their interceptor orbit... in order to not be caught and killed). Do you not trust moa to end our 0.0 dream or something? ^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears. Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
Veskrashen Justified Chaos Spaceship Bebop 762	Posted - 2015.03.10 01:30:47 - [1135] - Quote Alavaria Fera wrote: Putting the little (probably expensive) entosis thing at risk is putting something at risk. What you want is specifically "put a hull at risk" which is to say, you want to get killmail off it. It obviously won't do if pods were able to sovwar either... though you're putting your pod at risk Sure, it's an isk loss. The idea though is that if you can bugger off and leave the sov cap thingy behind, you're free to immediately drop another sov thingy on another structure. Whereas if you force the use of a module that keeps you on field while it's active, removing that module - and the ship it's mounted on - means that pilot can't continue to threaten sov until he makes his way back to a "home base" somewhere to reship. That's the issue - if it's something you can abandon without losing your ship, you can continue to threaten sov unimpeded, even though the defender established "military control of the grid" and killed the sov deployable. To take or defend sov, you should be stuck on grid. The sov capture mechanic should require an active module of some kind, to meet the CCP design goals. Using a deployable or drone - which can easily be abandoned and replenished by say a cloaked Blockade Runner with a Mobile Depot, or a cargo Nestor, or a cloaked Carrier, or... - doesn't really fit the bill. We Gallente have a saying: "CCP created the Gallente Militia to train the Fighters..."
Alavaria Fera GoonWaffe 6601	Posted - 2015.03.10 01:32:26 - [1136] - Quote Yep, it's less about about risk or anything ... sure I can drop another sov thing. Or I can leave and just shoot the (same) sov laser at another thing... I don't even lose the sov laser, i get however many uses out of it as I want... It's because you want to keep the sov attacking guy on grid watching his dscan or whatever. A noble sentiment ^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears. Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
Veskrashen Justified Chaos Spaceship Bebop 762	Posted - 2015.03.10 01:36:43 - [1137] - Quote Alavaria Fera wrote: Maybe they're actually worried about goons shotgunning all over the place and figure that requiring the ship to be tied up will deter us. I mean it isn't so much about risk, as making it boring for the attacker (they have to be there and watch their interceptor orbit... in order to not be caught and killed). Do you not trust moa to end our 0.0 dream or something? Don't give a damn about your sov, or MOA, or any of that crap. But hey, go all ad hominem if you can't counter my actual points. If you're not on grid, active, targetable, vulnerable... you should have no impact on sov at all. You don't have active control over the grid, you're cloaked up or in a POS or in another system. If they wanted you to be able to bugger off at will, the original design of the Entosis Link wouldn't prevent you from warping or receiving remote assistance. Come on folks, you're smarter than that. This thread is about balancing the Entosis Link within the design goals as presented in the other thread, not about whether those design goals were valid / should be implemented / etc. Now if a CSM member or CCP Dev wants to chime in and say "yeah we're totally cool with you being cloaked AFK while capping sov" or "yeah having sov capture mechanics embodied in a drone that you can abandon without penalty sounds awesome" then sure, we can have that discussion. At the moment though, it's about a module with low fitting requirements, with 25 or 250km effective range, that prevents warp or remote assistance when active. Not to mention the fact that having it as a drone would basically require it to be a light drone to keep Frigates viable for contesting sov, and for them to add drone bays to all the ships that don't already have them to meet their design goal of the Entosis Link not influencing what ship you bring for a sov doctrine. We Gallente have a saying: "CCP created the Gallente Militia to train the Fighters..."
ISD Dorrim Barstorlode ISD Community Communications Liaisons 4364	Posted - 2015.03.10 01:38:16 - [1138] - Quote Locked for a quick clean up. ISD Dorrim Barstorlode Captain Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs) Interstellar Services Department
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 655	Posted - 2015.03.10 02:54:08 - [1139] - Quote i feel like it still needs to be a ship-mounted module but it definitely needs anti-interceptor properties like the ones mentioned repeatedly in this thread
Zazad Antollare Enlightened Industries Goonswarm Federation 0	Posted - 2015.03.10 02:54:44 - [1140] - Quote Ok im going to give a last try to the deployable/drone sov laser The idea is that in order to make the link have the minimum effect on ships and tactics it should be detached from the ship carrying it. This will make that no matter what doctrine is being used the sov laser is the same for everyone, same hp and same sig/speed tank (if applicable) For the sake of it call it entosis hacking module Base attributes 1 per ship (low volume) MTU level hp or whatever the devs fell is reasonable Abandoning grid disconnects the module (possible not being able to scoop again) Control ship has to be within 250k (or grid range) Make it that you can only resupply in the same way you can resupply a ship (station, Pos, carrier,GÇª) If high slot is needed for any reason make it that it can be used with a launcher if not make it launch form cargo hold Could be invulnerable while 2 or more links are active so that only when you truly control the grid be either killing the enemy ship with an active module or make them run away you can make the timer advance and not by only killing the module Requirements: 1-As much as possible, the Entosis Link capture progress should reflect which group has effective military control of the grid. GÇô Check Only if you kill the enemy or if they leave you can advance the timer 2-The optimal strategy for fighting over a location with the Entosis Link should be to gain effective control of the grid. - Check Same as above 3- The Entosis Link itself should have the minimum possible effect on what ships and tactics players can choose. GÇôCheck Bring whatever you want, you win the fight you make the timer go forward 4- The restrictions and penalties on the Entosis Link should be as simple and understandable as possible. GÇô Semi-Check Some of the penalties that the current iteration of the link has wonGÇÖt be transferable to this system but new ones can be added. Some people might want KB to show their friends and even though a KB for the link can be generated people still want to kill ships that is the thing that this system might lack. Still I believe is better than a ship link since this way if people really want the sov they have to stay one grid and win the fight (you only have one chance per ship after deploying) or if people only want to troll they can only troll once until resupply (same resupply mechanics as ships).



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

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.