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)

CCP Fozzie C C P C C P Alliance 12312	Posted - 2015.03.09 13:13:36 - [1] - Quote 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 Game Designer \| Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie http://www.twitch.tv/ccp_fozzie/

afkalt Republic Military School Minmatar Republic 864	Posted - 2015.03.09 13:19:18 - [2] - Quote Trollceptors are a myth do not buy it. They'll be shattered by missile boats.
Amyclas Amatin SUNDERING Goonswarm Federation 632	Posted - 2015.03.09 13:19:45 - [3] - Quote Wishful thinking. If Entosis links flip/destroy structures, they will be the center of our doctrines. We play to win. Quote: 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. Put it this way. If sending 500 suicide alts to Entosis something is a viable strategy, we will do it. 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?"
Gorski Car 505	Posted - 2015.03.09 13:21:25 - [4] - Quote There are so many things you can do to counter trollceptors I cant help but think that this is a vocal minority overreacting and creating doomsday scenarios. Collect this post
Dave Stark 7407	Posted - 2015.03.09 13:22:26 - [5] - Quote Amyclas Amatin wrote: Wishful thinking. If Entosis links flip/destroy structures, they will be the center of our doctrines. We play to win. so basically anything without a utility high is already a no-go for your fleet doctrines? (i assume the ectoplasm link still requires a high slot)
Amyclas Amatin SUNDERING Goonswarm Federation 632	Posted - 2015.03.09 13:23:41 - [6] - Quote Dave Stark wrote: Amyclas Amatin wrote: Wishful thinking. If Entosis links flip/destroy structures, they will be the center of our doctrines. We play to win. so basically anything without a utility high is already a no-go for your fleet doctrines? (i assume the ectoplasm link still requires a high slot) Addendum - Ishtars online. 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?"
Sougiro Seta We are not bad. Just unlucky Goonswarm Federation 13	Posted - 2015.03.09 13:23:59 - [7] - Quote Fozzieclaws clearly showed the community this past days that ceptors are not broken and that they're easy to catch.
Kaarous Aldurald Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE. 12055	Posted - 2015.03.09 13:29:22 - [8] - Quote Quote: As much as possible, the Entosis Link capture progress should reflect which group has effective military control of the grid. This will not happen if frigates are allowed to use it. Quote: The optimal strategy for fighting over a location with the Entosis Link should be to gain effective control of the grid. Then make it disable prop mods as well, so people can't ***** out and kite their way through a sov capture. If their intent to attack the sov in a given system is genuine and not just trolling, then they'll have no problem fighting for control of the grid, instead of kiting until the other guy dies of boredom. One or both of those things should be implemented, if you are actually serious about making it matter who has control of the grid. Otherwise it will be a trolling contest. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs.
Elenahina Agony Unleashed Agony Empire 187	Posted - 2015.03.09 13:29:59 - [9] - Quote Amyclas Amatin wrote: Dave Stark wrote: Amyclas Amatin wrote: Wishful thinking. If Entosis links flip/destroy structures, they will be the center of our doctrines. We play to win. so basically anything without a utility high is already a no-go for your fleet doctrines? (i assume the ectoplasm link still requires a high slot) Addendum - Ishtars online. So nothing of importance will have changed. Good to know. Agony Unleashed is Recruiting - Small Gang PvP in Null Sec
EvilweaselFinance BUTTECORP INC Goonswarm Federation 586	Posted - 2015.03.09 13:31:05 - [10] - Quote 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.

Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 577	Posted - 2015.03.09 13:31:37 - [11] - Quote so, no changes are going to be made then right, thanks for the update invest in maledictions
Anya Solette GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 30	Posted - 2015.03.09 13:31:47 - [12] - Quote End of the day, the weak alliances will fall, and GSF will still be standing towering over the wreckage, gloating over the corpses of the people who were sure that "This change will **** the goonies good lol"
Ilaister Absolutely Certain 165	Posted - 2015.03.09 13:31:59 - [13] - Quote While brawling doctrines would be far from optimal I think the HIC will see a fair bit of use as an Entosis platform from smaller groups. Bubble up to hopefully catch reinforcements you're not getting reps anyway.
Dave Stark 7409	Posted - 2015.03.09 13:32:31 - [14] - Quote 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.
Aralyn Cormallen Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation 834	Posted - 2015.03.09 13:32:51 - [15] - Quote CCP Fozzie wrote: We can use everything from module price... Please, please, learn from experience. Price is not a sensible balance mechanic in any way.
Amyclas Amatin SUNDERING Goonswarm Federation 632	Posted - 2015.03.09 13:33:01 - [16] - Quote Will Entosis links do anything to ship velocity? If they don't, even if you don't allow frigates to fit them, we will troll in orthruses. 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?"
afkalt Republic Military School Minmatar Republic 864	Posted - 2015.03.09 13:34:30 - [17] - Quote 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
colera deldios 301	Posted - 2015.03.09 13:34:58 - [18] - Quote Reserved so I can criticize you when I get home from work.
Tineoidea Asanari Heeresversuchsanstalt The Bastion 40	Posted - 2015.03.09 13:36:43 - [19] - 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. I have to wonder, how do you want to do this if you plan to make the module usable by nearly every ship in the game? We will always try to find a way to abuse a mechanic (even if we dont like it because if we dont use it, our enemies will) and a module with 250 km of range fitable by nearly every ship in the game is a good way to give us alot of options to abuse this. Your argument that you dont want to influence the nullsec metas by restricting the sovlaser to a specific shipclass is a good one and I totally agree with that. Maybe the best solution would be by creating a special ship (made by Concord?) that is designed to use the sovlaser and the only one capable of doing that. You could even create different classes of that shiptype and it will still be much easier to balance as you only have to look at the options one or a few ships give and not every ship you created in the past 12 years.
Jaro Essa Dahkur Forge 13	Posted - 2015.03.09 13:37:22 - [20] - Quote 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? EvilweaselFinance wrote: 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. You bring whatever you think will beat what the other guys brought, they having brought what they think will beat what you might bring. That's the very definition of the metagame. Tineoidea Asanari wrote: ...a module with 250 km of range fitable by nearly every ship in the game is a good way to give us alot of options to abuse this. The T2 module will have 250 km max range, but in practice it will be limited by the lock range of the ship it is fitted to. Bring damps.

Ned Thomas Signal Cartel EvE-Scout Enclave 1084	Posted - 2015.03.09 13:37:30 - [21] - Quote I've seen a few people using Cyno's as a placeholder for E-links when theorycrfting and I kinda like that as a starting point for fitting requirements. Just to throw that out there. Don't get lost alone - Join Signal Cartel, New Eden's premier haven for explorers! Onward to Thera with Eve Scout
Elenahina Agony Unleashed Agony Empire 187	Posted - 2015.03.09 13:37:39 - [22] - Quote Aralyn Cormallen wrote: CCP Fozzie wrote: We can use everything from module price... Please, please, learn from experience. Price is not a sensible balance mechanic in any way. cough cough supercaps online cough Agony Unleashed is Recruiting - Small Gang PvP in Null Sec
Borachon GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 25	Posted - 2015.03.09 13:37:55 - [23] - Quote The biggest concern with trollceptors seems to be the extreme long range on T2 entosis links. I understand wanting a long-range link for things like sniper doctrines, but I don't see why you're doing this with the T1/T2 distinction. Instead, why not have S/M/L/XL entosis links with ranges similar to S/M/L/XL long range weapons? The T1/T2 variants would then mostly impact cycle times. This gives you more room to use the module tools at your disposal to tweak usage. It does potentially complicate the loot table of drifter battleships, however.
Arkon Olacar Bearded BattleBears Brave Collective 492	Posted - 2015.03.09 13:38:25 - [24] - Quote 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. Warping to zero
Assassn Gallic Big Diggers Get Off My Lawn 25	Posted - 2015.03.09 13:38:59 - [25] - 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. 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. Fighters, bring back their Scan res! Fighter scan res thread
Anya Solette GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 30	Posted - 2015.03.09 13:40:05 - [26] - Quote 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.
Phoenix Jones Isogen 5 1138	Posted - 2015.03.09 13:40:07 - [27] - Quote Probably the simplest solution is ship restrictions. No interceptors (bubble immunity), no covops ship. Actually I would go as far as saying that the entosis link cannot be onlined if there is any type of cloaking device (covops or basic), on the ship. So no interceptors, nothing with a cloaking device. If you want to address the kiting ships, only allow the t2 version of the entosis device (the one at 250km), on battle cruisers and above. You remove bubble immune ships from beginning captures, remove troll cloaky campers from entosising a system without any help, and remove kiters by making the long range version bc and above. Yea you will have to put some restrictions on them unfortunately. The alternative is to make the 250 km version so haneously expensive that people wouldn't use it on a frigate or cruiser. Yaay!!!!
Kaarous Aldurald Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE. 12058	Posted - 2015.03.09 13:40:24 - [28] - Quote 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? "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs.
Huffy Dragon Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State 1	Posted - 2015.03.09 13:40:51 - [29] - Quote Make them only fit to command ships and T1 (no faction) battleships. Time to revive some dead shipclasses. I don't fear the entosis-ceptor on grid. I fear the entosis-ceptor crossing an entire region in 10 minutes, escaping gatecamps and ninja-reinforcing everywhere.
Capqu Love Squad Confederation of xXPIZZAXx 1063	Posted - 2015.03.09 13:41:10 - [30] - Quote remove interceptor bubble immunity no ship should be uncatchable, and interceptors were already one of the safest ships to move around null with before the change. now they just completely overshadow all other frigates because they have a binary ability which the others cannot match my kb has a lot of interceptors on it for the record, and i really really don't think they need this to remain competitive. point range, mwd signature and (warp) speed are more than enough https://zkillboard.com/character/1107018389/topalltime/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPntjTPWgKE

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.

Capqu Love Squad Confederation of xXPIZZAXx 1064	Posted - 2015.03.09 13:54:17 - [61] - Quote interdiction nullified interceptors aside though i am looking forward to these changes https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPntjTPWgKE
afkalt Republic Military School Minmatar Republic 867	Posted - 2015.03.09 13:54:42 - [62] - Quote Quesa wrote: 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. That was actually a typo. I meant to say "defending ship"
Carniflex StarHunt Mordus Angels 312	Posted - 2015.03.09 13:57:18 - [63] - Quote Arkon Olacar wrote: 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 I was thinking of static sov structures. As so far the lamentation about trollceptor has been mostly focused on how these will be "creating timers" all over the place. If at the time of the actual sov fight with 2 days to prepare the defender is not able to kill one ceptor that cant warp then the defender is not worthy of holding sov in my opinion. Harassing unmanned nodes, however, should be valid tactics and it does not matter all that much what particular mobile enough platform is used. Here, sanity... niiiice sanity, come to daddy... okay, that's a good sanity... THWONK! GOT the bastard.
rsantos Mosquito Squadron Mordus Angels 30	Posted - 2015.03.09 13:57:27 - [64] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Quote: As much as possible, the Entosis Link capture progress should reflect which group has effective military control of the grid. This will not happen if frigates are allowed to use it. Quote: The optimal strategy for fighting over a location with the Entosis Link should be to gain effective control of the grid. Then make it disable prop mods as well, so people can't ***** out and kite their way through a sov capture. If their intent to attack the sov in a given system is genuine and not just trolling, then they'll have no problem fighting for control of the grid, instead of kiting until the other guy dies of boredom. One or both of those things should be implemented, if you are actually serious about making it matter who has control of the grid. Otherwise it will be a trolling contest. You see... if the problem is that if an interceptor is enough to make you quit and give up your sov maybe you shouldn't own it. Keep spinning! Yes with this new sov mechanic the major blocks will have a hard time keeping all their sovs holding... but thats exactly the point of the change. Go to Cloud Ring... theres "no one" living there, its a dead region! The point of this change is also to make you give up space that you can't "effectively" control and not to just put an end to structure grids.
Dave Stark 7410	Posted - 2015.03.09 13:57:29 - [65] - 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. nor do 2 ships sitting on grid pretty much afk linking the node. shrug
davet517 Caldari Provisions Caldari State 57	Posted - 2015.03.09 13:57:45 - [66] - Quote LT Alter wrote: 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. . He didn't say he'd send them all at once. What he's talking about is spamming cheap ships with links on them for as long as it takes. Which brings up a good point. Entosis links don't have to be expensive, but could they be uncommon? Say made from single run BPCs found by exploring? Would deter the "spamming" behavior described above that would be possible if you could crank out unlimited stockpiles of them.
Capqu Love Squad Confederation of xXPIZZAXx 1065	Posted - 2015.03.09 13:57:56 - [67] - Quote if the grid is contested inteceptors are actually useless guys, their lockrange is so pathetic that one or two damps means there is no way they can keep their entosis link active i think the main issue around interceptors is their ability to move 100% safely behind camps and entosis uncontested systems which should be protected by camped choke points https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPntjTPWgKE
John McCreedy Eve Defence Force The Kadeshi 157	Posted - 2015.03.09 13:58:07 - [68] - Quote First off, thanks for posting this. It's good that you're prepared to listen rather than railroad through changes. CCP Fozzie wrote: 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. It's not just evasion tactics, it's how you respond to a potential threats. Here's the biggest problem with the current system, mate. You only need one ship. It doesn't matter what size that ship is, it's one ship. Post-change, one ship is now to be considered an immediate potential threat. During the vulnerability window you're asking people to sit there and camp structures every time one unaffiliated player (neut/red) enters the system on the off chance they're after disrupting your sov. That's soon going to suck the fun out of Eve for people. There needs to be an immediate identifier of threat to sov for the average player. A way of judging if a random in local is there to cause mischief, just passing through or an existential threat to your space-empire. Under the current mechanics, a single ship isn't perceived as much of a threat. A small fleet is going to provoke a response usually. It should be no different under the new system. So would it be possible to set the time needed to hack the structure much higher than two minutes but allow multiple links from the same team reduce that timer? You can still bring Interceptors if you like but you'll be best using a fleet of them which is going to provoke a response which leads to more content, more losses, more industry, more sales, more fun. Allowing a single ship to take 'reinforce' everything will lead to stagnation. Eve needs to be about risk vs reward. The bigger the reward the bigger the risks involved. The proposed changes are the exact opposite of that. Minimal risks for the richest of rewards. How is that a healthy system for the game? Having multiple ships speed up the process solves the other main complaint from people - the vulnerability window. At least with multiple ships there's a chance of a fight for them. Again, I come back to the point that Eve is a game therefore should be fun to play. If these multiple ships can take your sov there will be a whole lot less blueballing going around. People will have to respond to the threat but the threat is at least balanced between attacker and defender.
Sentient Blade Crisis Atmosphere 1488	Posted - 2015.03.09 13:58:52 - [69] - Quote I'd like to see the link require some kind of group-work to support it, remote energy feeds, or a remote Entosis support link similar to a remote sensor booster. Give a ship using the booster some kind of defence buff while it's in play so a defending force has the option of picking off the support links, or trying to hit the Entosis ship itself.
Tora Bushido EVE Corporation 987654321-POP The Marmite Collective 2034	Posted - 2015.03.09 14:00:23 - [70] - Quote Capqu wrote: remove interceptor bubble immunity Dont, as the newbies from high-sec use them to explore null-sec. The size of the ships isnt the problem. It's the speed. So keep your focus on speedmods. TORA FOR CSM X - A NEW HIGH-SEC YOU EITHER LOVE US OR WE HATE YOU - DELETE THE WEAK , ADAPT OR DIE !

Kaarous Aldurald Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE. 12061	Posted - 2015.03.09 14:01:11 - [71] - Quote rsantos wrote: You see... if the problem is that if an interceptor is enough to make you quit and give up your sov maybe you shouldn't own it. And more strawman arguments. Isn't the whole point of this change to go against the "weaponized boredom" paradigm? Or is totally okay with you to have a four hour tax on your gameplay for something arbitrary? Please, let me know what you do in the game, we can just have you do something different, on the same grid, for four hours per day. I'm sure you'll be okay with that, since you're okay with putting it on somebody else. Quote: Yes with this new sov mechanic the major blocks will have a hard time keeping all their sovs holding... but thats exactly the point of the change. That's so much not the point, for what I said or for this rebalance, that I find it hard to believe you're sincere. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs.
Bj Glitternaut Eternity INC. Goonswarm Federation 0	Posted - 2015.03.09 14:01:44 - [72] - Quote I personally would like to see Entosis Links limited to cruisers and above. Interceptors, while not hard to counter on grid, are extremely popular as conflict avoidance ships. If the goal is to generate content and fights, allowing roaming groups of interceptors to equip Entosis links, will only encourage more coward interceptor fleets.
Torneach Iustus Emrys Enterprises 0	Posted - 2015.03.09 14:02:30 - [73] - Quote Perhaps applying an Afterburner/MWD effectiveness penalty to the ship (similar to the HIC bubble) using the Entosis Link will be helpful? At the very least it would eliminate the threat of Trollceptors (if it's a true problem). Raids on station services wouldn't be laughably easy and would require a little staying power - and to get away you'd need to hit an isolated station.
Capqu Love Squad Confederation of xXPIZZAXx 1065	Posted - 2015.03.09 14:03:45 - [74] - Quote Tora Bushido wrote: Capqu wrote: remove interceptor bubble immunity Dont, as the newbies from high-sec use them to explore null-sec. The size of the ships isnt the problem. It's the speed. So keep your focus speedmods. thats the problem, newbies shouldn't be able to roam null with impunity in a 25m isk ship https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPntjTPWgKE
Querns GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 1399	Posted - 2015.03.09 14:03:51 - [75] - Quote Capqu wrote: if the grid is contested inteceptors are actually useless guys, their lockrange is so pathetic that one or two damps means there is no way they can keep their entosis link active i think the main issue around interceptors is their ability to move 100% safely behind camps and entosis uncontested systems which should be protected by camped choke points This is the core of the issue. As a sov haver of any size, I should be able to use the geography of my holdings in its defense. Being able to deny entry to my holdings should pay dividends in the security of my empire. Interceptors ignore all geography because, while traveling, they cannot be caught. Interceptors also have superlative disengagement ability, which converts the entire process of defending sov from defeating a gang of rabble-rousers to keepign a large group of counter-interceptors in a central location during your primetime, then dispatching them as blips pop up on the Sov Radar of choice. No actual PvP occurs in this scenario, it's just two interceptors weakly applying the sov laser to the same target in an attempt to bore each other into submission. Alternatively, I guess you could park a single supercap on every possible defensive target during your primetime. Thanks to fatigue, this is more viable than you'd think. This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
Amyclas Amatin SUNDERING Goonswarm Federation 634	Posted - 2015.03.09 14:04:03 - [76] - Quote Tora Bushido wrote: Capqu wrote: remove interceptor bubble immunity Dont, as the newbies from high-sec use them to explore null-sec. The size of the ships isnt the problem. It's the speed. So keep your focus speedmods. When I was a newbie, I actually had to learn to deal with bubbles! Now the general population is pretty bubble ignorant. 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?"
Arkon Olacar Bearded BattleBears Brave Collective 496	Posted - 2015.03.09 14:05:43 - [77] - Quote 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? Warping to zero
BadAssMcKill ElitistOps 976	Posted - 2015.03.09 14:06:34 - [78] - Quote Just nerf interceptor agility slightly, that way you can just instathrasher key constellations
Tora Bushido EVE Corporation 987654321-POP The Marmite Collective 2034	Posted - 2015.03.09 14:06:49 - [79] - Quote Capqu wrote: Tora Bushido wrote: Capqu wrote: remove interceptor bubble immunity Dont, as the newbies from high-sec use them to explore null-sec. The size of the ships isnt the problem. It's the speed. So keep your focus speedmods. thats the problem, newbies shouldn't be able to roam null with impunity in a 25m isk ship Yes, they should or null-sec will become even more boring without fresh blood. I hope high-sec carebears don't make you worry to much to care TORA FOR CSM X - A NEW HIGH-SEC YOU EITHER LOVE US OR WE HATE YOU - DELETE THE WEAK , ADAPT OR DIE !
Mikka Raikkonen GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 1	Posted - 2015.03.09 14:08:05 - [80] - Quote LT Alter wrote: 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. I really rather doubt we'd commit 500 interceptors to one ihub. No, we'll commit 10 interceptors to 50 hubs. You might kill a few of us if you can catch them, but far more likely you'll spend your time chasing your tail, and we'll come back. Again. and again. And again until you go mad and stop showing up. Hell we probably wouldn't even bother to contest the subsequent command node fights. Nope, just make you recapture them constantly. If you think that that sounds boring as hell for you as a defender and even more so for us as an attacker to the point where we wouldn't do that, consider the following: we ground out entire regions of space using siege bombers. edit: Also, every time we pop an Ihub, that's up to billion ISK investment that you just lost because of an Entosis module. That has to be replaced using a freighter. In Nullsec. Enjoy.

Aralyn Cormallen Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation 837	Posted - 2015.03.09 14:08:13 - [81] - Quote Arkon Olacar wrote: 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. Its also worth pointing out that, for a defender "halting" capture is not good enough, since a structure that is partially captured remains vulnerable outside the vulnerable timezone. Since anyone needs to get one cycle complete before they commence capture, a defender will always be arriving on grid once the attacker is in to their capture cycle. The defender then doesn't halt the attacker immediately, he has to go through his "preperation" cycle first. Hence, any "stalemate" has to be resolved by the defender, since the structure will potentially remain vulnerable forever if he doesn't (or can't).
Querns GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 1400	Posted - 2015.03.09 14:08:28 - [82] - Quote BadAssMcKill wrote: Just nerf interceptor agility slightly, that way you can just instathrasher key constellations I've always been partial to the nuclear option here -- all ships, except shuttles and pods, are hard-locked to a minimum of 3s align time. If Eve's server resources, code base, etc. improve to the point where a 500ms simulation rate is possible, then revert the change. This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
Suitonia Genos Occidere Warlords of the Deep 465	Posted - 2015.03.09 14:09:03 - [83] - Quote What about putting a Signature Radius penalty on the Entosis link module, like +100% sig while active? (This might punish gangs who rely on Damage Mitigation rather than actual Effective Hitpoints for tank though). Another possible restriction is to put a speed cap on the Entosis link (kinda like how 500m/s is speed cap for cynosural field), maybe 5km/s? So that the average interceptor isn't punished at all but pure speed/troll fits will be at a speed which is catchable for t1 Attack Frigates and Interceptors. Contributer to Eve is Easy: https://www.youtube.com/user/eveiseasy/videos Solo PvP is possible with a 20 day old character! :) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BvOB4KXYk-o
rsantos Mosquito Squadron Mordus Angels 30	Posted - 2015.03.09 14:09:06 - [84] - Quote Capqu wrote: if the grid is contested inteceptors are actually useless guys, their lockrange is so pathetic that one or two damps means there is no way they can keep their entosis link active i think the main issue around interceptors is their ability to move 100% safely behind camps and entosis uncontested systems which should be protected by camped choke points Add a few linked rapiers or huggins, but by all means if the interdiction nullified interceptor is the issue than remove it! We will see who camps who and that jump fatigue!
Kinis Deren StarHunt Mordus Angels 451	Posted - 2015.03.09 14:09:20 - [85] - Quote Good job CCP Fozzie! If the only thing on the grid is the interceptor then it has complete control of said grid. It stands to reason then that a single interceptor pilot in an interceptor can initiate the vulnerability of a system using the Entosis link. In my humble opinion, those screaming about trollceptors appear to be the ones least likely to be using the space that might be contested. In this respect, their motivaton is abundantly clear - they don't want to lose their control of vast swathes of currently empty space nor be forced to actively defend it.
Kaarous Aldurald Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE. 12063	Posted - 2015.03.09 14:09:36 - [86] - Quote Tora Bushido wrote: Capqu wrote: Tora Bushido wrote: Capqu wrote: remove interceptor bubble immunity Dont, as the newbies from high-sec use them to explore null-sec. The size of the ships isnt the problem. It's the speed. So keep your focus speedmods. thats the problem, newbies shouldn't be able to roam null with impunity in a 25m isk ship Yes, they should or null-sec will become even more boring without fresh blood. I hope high-sec carebears don't make you worry to much to care This is a massive derailment, but for a while now I have believed that bubble immunity should not be a native hull ability. It should instead be the ability to fit an interdiction nullifier module. Like a warp stab, but not. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs.
Andrea Keuvo Science and Trade Institute Caldari State 310	Posted - 2015.03.09 14:10:10 - [87] - Quote Carniflex wrote: 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. I'm not opposed to a larger force having some advantage. What I'm opposed to is infecting sov war with the space AIDS that is an ECM frig blob. The only thing worse than grinding millions of structure HP is spending an entire fight permajammed.
afkalt Republic Military School Minmatar Republic 868	Posted - 2015.03.09 14:11:43 - [88] - Quote Add occupancy bonuses in reverse to defenders recapturing - so a fully upgraded object can be recapped by defenders in <2.5 minutes. Make undoing trivial, half attacks a 2 minute job.
Jessy Andersteen AdAstra. Beach Club 6	Posted - 2015.03.09 14:11:51 - [89] - Quote 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.
Ann Markson Red Frog Freight Red-Frog 9	Posted - 2015.03.09 14:12:40 - [90] - Quote While the Trolleceptor thing itself is a useless rage it adresses another issue. Currently the majority of Sov Null systems is worth ****. Alliances hold entire regions to have access to 10% of their systems in which people actually can rat at isk/h rates significantly above highsec levels. People are mad because noone wants to life or be in the -0.1 or -0.2 systems because it adds a lot of effort while not giving access to anything worth much more in terms of income abilitiy. So People hold large chunks of sov to use a very few parts of it now rage because the parts they dont use would be reinforced constantly, but are effectively not worth using at all, thus have no place in occupancy based Sov. If CCP wants occupancy based Sov to work the truesecs either need a rework, or the anomaly system does in a way that makes the majority of Sov systems worth holding, not the minority of them. One could argue that it doesnt has any place here, but with Sov being a very complex topic we need to adress each part of it simultaneously.

Kaarous Aldurald Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE. 12063	Posted - 2015.03.09 14:12:48 - [91] - Quote Andrea Keuvo wrote: I'm not opposed to a larger force having some advantage. What I'm opposed to is infecting sov war with the space AIDS that is an ECM frig blob. The only thing worse than grinding millions of structure HP is spending an entire fight permajammed. Yeah, I'm afraid that's TS. Ewar is one of the few force multipliers available in EVE Online that lets new players leverage the only advantage they have over older groups of players. Numbers. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs.
Harkin Issier Lithium Financial and Exploration 11	Posted - 2015.03.09 14:13:25 - [92] - Quote 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. Kiting trollceptors need LOTS of room to burn around in, putting them in the 100+km range. All you need to do to counter them is fit sensor damps. Congrats, your interceptor is now useless. "Step into my fleet's optimal range", said the Lachesis to the Crow.
Eli Apol Pro Synergy 322	Posted - 2015.03.09 14:13:38 - [93] - Quote Speed/agility/sig radius nerf to a ship using the module if necessary Do not remove the potential for specific ship types that are able to penetrate into enemy space from using the module otherwise we'll just see blob heavy gatecamps and iron curtains around empty rental space. Range of the module by ship class is already controlled by the locking statistics of the hulls, f.e. only gimp fit inties with no tank or utility can lock over 100km - and can be affected by two of the types of EWAR already available; ECM and sensor damps on a cheap Griffin or Maulus. If someone wants to blob 100 ships and kill off the defenders defensive links, they probably do have 'military' control of the grid.
Yongtau Naskingar Yongtau Naskingar Corporation 89	Posted - 2015.03.09 14:14:59 - [94] - Quote If you have S/M/L/XL versions, you could require that two different versions must be active in order to make progress. Then neither the attacker nor the defender can specialize too much in their doctrine.
The Mittani GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 8271	Posted - 2015.03.09 14:15:39 - [95] - Quote Though it may come as a surprise to some, I'm a big fan of the new system, with some tweaks around the edges - tweak the links a little and I'm happy with them. Here are some options I'd be in favor of w/r/t Entosis Links . None of these ideas are mine - they come from Xttz, Progodlegend, or are otherwise ubiquitous across the community. Interdiction Nullifiers could interfere with the activation of an Entosis Link - T3s would need to refit, and they simply would not work with interceptors. Once activated, the Entosis Link could disables any fitted propulsion mod, like siege/triage currently. Progodlegend's idea, we could limit the link module to cruiser class hulls and above via cpu/pg. I'd be happy with any/all of the above three tweaks. Cheers! ~hi~
Kaarous Aldurald Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE. 12066	Posted - 2015.03.09 14:16:05 - [96] - Quote Eli Apol wrote: Do not remove the potential for specific ship types that are able to penetrate into enemy space from using the module otherwise we'll just see blob heavy gatecamps and iron curtains around empty rental space. I'm curious what the problem is with that. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs.
Arkon Olacar Bearded BattleBears Brave Collective 498	Posted - 2015.03.09 14:18:53 - [97] - Quote 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! Warping to zero
Elenahina Agony Unleashed Agony Empire 189	Posted - 2015.03.09 14:18:55 - [98] - Quote xttz wrote: 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. Agreed. Having the Entosis link stop prop mods would stop alot of the rabble rabble around the troll ceptor. Agony Unleashed is Recruiting - Small Gang PvP in Null Sec
John McCreedy Eve Defence Force The Kadeshi 158	Posted - 2015.03.09 14:18:59 - [99] - Quote 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. Crow + right implants + right modules = trollceptor. Yeah you won't get 250km but you'll sure as hell get long range for a Frigate and coupled with its speed and manoeuvrability, can quite easily stay out of the range of most ECM. It's easy for you to say 'put a single ship on field' but what if they're not on field, just in local? You dock up right? Then they go on field. Then you undock. Then they bugger off. Sov mechanics are then reduced to who gets bored the fastest. Is that really healthy for the game?
Jessy Andersteen AdAstra. Beach Club 6	Posted - 2015.03.09 14:19:40 - [100] - Quote Capqu wrote: Tora Bushido wrote: Capqu wrote: remove interceptor bubble immunity Dont, as the newbies from high-sec use them to explore null-sec. The size of the ships isnt the problem. It's the speed. So keep your focus speedmods. thats the problem, newbies shouldn't be able to roam null with impunity in a 25m isk ship I reformulate u: "the problem is that new can be a danger for a skilled toon". It's not a problem, it's a feature, a BASE feature of eve: skillpoint just give u versalitity not easy victory. And u want easy victory... beacause of ur skill point. Eve is not a "Pay To Win" MMORPG. Ceptor is very good now: he can do his job correctly and can be defeated by clever people.

Eli Apol Pro Synergy 322	Posted - 2015.03.09 14:20:33 - [101] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Eli Apol wrote: Do not remove the potential for specific ship types that are able to penetrate into enemy space from using the module otherwise we'll just see blob heavy gatecamps and iron curtains around empty rental space. I'm curious what the problem is with that. Fozziebear wrote: Goal #3: Minimize the systemic pressure to bring more people or larger ships than would be required to simply defeat your enemies on the field of battle. Goal #4: Drastically reduce the time and effort required to conquer undefended space. Goal #5: Provide significant strategic benefits from living in your space. Goal #6: Spread the largest Sovereignty battles over multiple star systems to take advantage of New EdenGÇÖs varied geography and to better manage server load.
rsantos Mosquito Squadron Mordus Angels 30	Posted - 2015.03.09 14:20:49 - [102] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Quote: Yes with this new sov mechanic the major blocks will have a hard time keeping all their sovs holding... but thats exactly the point of the change. That's so much not the point, for what I said or for this rebalance, that I find it hard to believe you're sincere. Yes it is! The point of this rebalance is also to make you loose the sov you don't use and that you don't want to defend. We all want more people in null sec! Not all of us want more people in CFC or NC.!
afkalt Republic Military School Minmatar Republic 869	Posted - 2015.03.09 14:22:13 - [103] - Quote 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! Well, not really. You need response teams - which shouldn't be THAT big a deal for guys living in the area. It's not like it's an instant flip - you've got 8-38 minutes to get there and stomp them. And every two kills you get, on average that's 80m isk
Kaarous Aldurald Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE. 12066	Posted - 2015.03.09 14:22:21 - [104] - Quote Eli Apol wrote: Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Eli Apol wrote: Do not remove the potential for specific ship types that are able to penetrate into enemy space from using the module otherwise we'll just see blob heavy gatecamps and iron curtains around empty rental space. I'm curious what the problem is with that. Fozziebear wrote: Goal #3: Minimize the systemic pressure to bring more people or larger ships than would be required to simply defeat your enemies on the field of battle. Goal #4: Drastically reduce the time and effort required to conquer undefended space. Goal #5: Provide significant strategic benefits from living in your space. Goal #6: Spread the largest Sovereignty battles over multiple star systems to take advantage of New EdenGÇÖs varied geography and to better manage server load. None of those things stop being true, whether CCP takes the necessary step to restrict frigates from using these modules or not. Try again. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs.
Elenahina Agony Unleashed Agony Empire 189	Posted - 2015.03.09 14:23:07 - [105] - Quote xttz wrote: 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 While I wouldn't mind sized links, I think they need to be kept away from capitals - especially supercapitals - unless we want to end up witht he same N+1 supercaps meta we have today. Agony Unleashed is Recruiting - Small Gang PvP in Null Sec
Kaylee Fonza Purgatory Afterglow 0	Posted - 2015.03.09 14:23:40 - [106] - Quote Arkon Olacar wrote: 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. If the interceptor is flying at 100-150km, 1 celestis can make is useless.
Kale Freeman dirt 'n' glitter 38	Posted - 2015.03.09 14:24:21 - [107] - Quote What about ditching the whole Entosis link entirely. Make a Entosis deployable. It takes 10 minutes to come online. It needs to be deployed within 25/250km of the objective. Once it is online and there are no more enemy entosis deployables on grid the owner can right click it and instruct it to attack/hack the objective.
Acquisition Therapy State War Academy Caldari State 0	Posted - 2015.03.09 14:24:41 - [108] - Quote Fozzie, It would be extremely helpful if you would lend us your current working ideas for specific fitting requirements i.e. cpu/pg and any rig changes the modules might impose, to both squash our trollceptor fears and also allow us to discuss what ships can fit it in your current design, and what else they can fit in addition to the link. Then meaningful and constructive feedback can begin on the link. Without it, its kind of like the wizard of oz telling us not to look behind the curtain. Thanks for your hard work.
Elenahina Agony Unleashed Agony Empire 189	Posted - 2015.03.09 14:24:52 - [109] - Quote Tora Bushido wrote: Just disable reps and microwarps when using it. Then ship size would matter as much. You need to disable ABs as well, or we'll from Trollceptors to Troll Phatasms Agony Unleashed is Recruiting - Small Gang PvP in Null Sec
Kaarous Aldurald Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE. 12066	Posted - 2015.03.09 14:24:52 - [110] - Quote To all of the cheerleaders. In a juxtaposition of your most frequently parroted remark, I submit this. If you can't bust a gatecamp in anything but the ludicrously overpowered interceptor hulls, what makes you think you deserve sov in the first place? "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 1400	Posted - 2015.03.09 14:25:50 - [111] - Quote Kaylee Fonza wrote: Arkon Olacar wrote: 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. If the interceptor is flying at 100-150km, 1 celestis can make is useless. The interceptor disengages, and uses its superior agility and warp speed to move to another capturable object. The celestis cannot keep up with an interceptor. The ability for an interceptor to be countered while sitting at one beacon was never in question. The interceptor's ability to disengage and travel with impunity is the issue. 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 875	Posted - 2015.03.09 14:25:57 - [112] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Eli Apol wrote: Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Eli Apol wrote: Do not remove the potential for specific ship types that are able to penetrate into enemy space from using the module otherwise we'll just see blob heavy gatecamps and iron curtains around empty rental space. I'm curious what the problem is with that. Fozziebear wrote: Goal #3: Minimize the systemic pressure to bring more people or larger ships than would be required to simply defeat your enemies on the field of battle. Goal #4: Drastically reduce the time and effort required to conquer undefended space. Goal #5: Provide significant strategic benefits from living in your space. Goal #6: Spread the largest Sovereignty battles over multiple star systems to take advantage of New EdenGÇÖs varied geography and to better manage server load. None of those things stop being true, whether CCP takes the necessary step to restrict frigates from using these modules or not. Try again. So how is camping a gate at chokes for 4 hours different from defending structures for 4 hours? How is that not the same overhead on the players?
Querns GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 1407	Posted - 2015.03.09 14:28:32 - [113] - Quote afkalt wrote: So how is camping a gate at chokes for 4 hours different from defending structures for 4 hours? How is that not the same overhead on the players? It allows actual PvP to occur. Interceptors are optimized, first and foremost, to AVOID PvP. This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
Kaarous Aldurald Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE. 12070	Posted - 2015.03.09 14:29:03 - [114] - Quote afkalt wrote: So how is camping a gate at chokes for 4 hours different from defending structures for 4 hours? How is that not the same overhead on the players? One is where you choose to be, one is where a poor mechanic forces you to be. You might not, but I still do value player choice and player freedom. The people who value orbiting a button in a disposable frigate are already in faction warfare. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs.
Tora Bushido EVE Corporation 987654321-POP The Marmite Collective 2037	Posted - 2015.03.09 14:29:51 - [115] - Quote Elenahina wrote: Tora Bushido wrote: Just disable reps and microwarps when using it. Then ship size would matter as much. You need to disable ABs as well, or we'll from Trollceptors to Troll Phatasms At least it easier to counter We should not only be looking at what the attackers can do, but what options the defenders have to counter it. If you keep those in balance, you will have fun. TORA FOR CSM X - A NEW HIGH-SEC YOU EITHER LOVE US OR WE HATE YOU - DELETE THE WEAK , ADAPT OR DIE !
John McCreedy Eve Defence Force The Kadeshi 158	Posted - 2015.03.09 14:29:59 - [116] - Quote Kale Freeman wrote: What about ditching the whole Entosis link entirely. Make a Entosis deployable. It takes 10 minutes to come online. It needs to be deployed within 25/250km of the objective. Once it is online and there are no more enemy entosis deployables on grid the owner can right click it and instruct it to attack/hack the objective. It would be an SBU by another name. Every sov holding alliance would anchor them on their structures, much as they do now with SBUs on every gate. We need a system that's balanced for both attacker and defender, not one or the other.
Elenahina Agony Unleashed Agony Empire 190	Posted - 2015.03.09 14:31:06 - [117] - Quote Tora Bushido wrote: Elenahina wrote: Tora Bushido wrote: Just disable reps and microwarps when using it. Then ship size would matter as much. You need to disable ABs as well, or we'll from Trollceptors to Troll Phatasms At least it easier to counter We should not only be looking at what the attackers can do, but what options the defenders have to counter it. If you keep those in balance, you will have fun. Fair point. Agony Unleashed is Recruiting - Small Gang PvP in Null Sec
rsantos Mosquito Squadron Mordus Angels 31	Posted - 2015.03.09 14:31:29 - [118] - Quote 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.
EvilweaselFinance BUTTECORP INC Goonswarm Federation 591	Posted - 2015.03.09 14:31:31 - [119] - Quote John McCreedy wrote: Kale Freeman wrote: What about ditching the whole Entosis link entirely. Make a Entosis deployable. It takes 10 minutes to come online. It needs to be deployed within 25/250km of the objective. Once it is online and there are no more enemy entosis deployables on grid the owner can right click it and instruct it to attack/hack the objective. It would be an SBU by another name. Every sov holding alliance would anchor them on their structures, much as they do now with SBUs on every gate. We need a system that's balanced for both attacker and defender, not one or the other. Well presumably it would have some kind of ship-level EHP, not millions, so it was relatively trivial to kill.
Samsara Toldya Academy of Contradictory Behaviour 259	Posted - 2015.03.09 14:32:12 - [120] - Quote I don't get the "troll contesting". Entosis Link is half part factional warfare farming (orbit an object for x minutes) and half part mining (activate module on object and watch it's beam for x minutes). While factional warfare farming and mining will give the pilot LP or ISK he won't earn a single penny contesting sov for teh lulz. There seem to be a lot of wannabe-miners in nullsec if so many trolls are looking forward to do mining-like stuff in the future. Running anomalies in a -0.1 sec system is "too low ISK/h!!!!!!!!!" but orbit an object without any ISK at all is worth doing it. Sure some will be running around trolling for the first two weeks... but troll contesting won't pay your PLEX at the end of the month. Are nullsec alliances already recruiting highsec miners to do the Entosis Link job? Grab the most experienced "put beam on object... wait for x minutes... repeat" guys now or your enemy will do it!

EvilweaselFinance BUTTECORP INC Goonswarm Federation 591	Posted - 2015.03.09 14:32:42 - [121] - Quote rsantos wrote: 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. people who are unable to own sov sure seem to have strong opinions on what other people should have to do to hold sov while demanding the absolute minimum effort on their part
Arkon Olacar Bearded BattleBears Brave Collective 498	Posted - 2015.03.09 14:33:07 - [122] - Quote John McCreedy wrote: Kale Freeman wrote: What about ditching the whole Entosis link entirely. Make a Entosis deployable. It takes 10 minutes to come online. It needs to be deployed within 25/250km of the objective. Once it is online and there are no more enemy entosis deployables on grid the owner can right click it and instruct it to attack/hack the objective. It would be an SBU by another name. Every sov holding alliance would anchor them on their structures, much as they do now with SBUs on every gate. We need a system that's balanced for both attacker and defender, not one or the other. If this had mobile deployable EHP, rather than SBU EHP, this would be less of an issue for the attackers. A few minutes for a gang to grind it down (rather than hours) would be fine. Warping to zero
Deacon Abox Justified Chaos Spaceship Bebop 473	Posted - 2015.03.09 14:33:20 - [123] - Quote Huffy Dragon wrote: Make them only fit to command ships and T1 (no faction) battleships. Time to revive some dead shipclasses. I don't fear the entosis-ceptor on grid. I fear the entosis-ceptor crossing an entire region in 10 minutes, escaping gatecamps and ninja-reinforcing everywhere. Quoted and liked but only for the underlined part. The trollceptor fear is largely misplaced imo. But nothing wrong with requiring a large bulky ship to run these things. Things that conceptually might need a large powerplant and series of human brains for processing power. However, please revive Command Ships and tech I BSs. The command ship and tech III command subsystem rebalance did not do enough to elevate Command ships. Tech III boosters are still the norm. Of course getting rid of off-grid boosting would be the best solution. And if you could add some command mode (or bonuses allowing the fitting of command mods) to tech III destroyers that might satisfy those that think somehow the fast small gang v blob needs off-grid boosting. As for tech I BSs, please temper the mobility nerfs. The BS and BC warp and align speeds are agonizing and unfun. That change alone might be enough to bring them back into use (if you are not going to do anything with bombs). Of course a smidge more hp might help as well. CCP, there are off buttons for ship explosions, missile effects, turret effects, etc. "Immersion" does not seem to be harmed by those. So, [u]please[/u] give us a persisting-áoff button for the jump gate and autoscan visuals.
John McCreedy Eve Defence Force The Kadeshi 158	Posted - 2015.03.09 14:33:42 - [124] - Quote EvilweaselFinance wrote: John McCreedy wrote: Kale Freeman wrote: What about ditching the whole Entosis link entirely. Make a Entosis deployable. It takes 10 minutes to come online. It needs to be deployed within 25/250km of the objective. Once it is online and there are no more enemy entosis deployables on grid the owner can right click it and instruct it to attack/hack the objective. It would be an SBU by another name. Every sov holding alliance would anchor them on their structures, much as they do now with SBUs on every gate. We need a system that's balanced for both attacker and defender, not one or the other. Well presumably it would have some kind of ship-level EHP, not millions, so it was relatively trivial to kill. Same could be achieved under Dominion sov just by reducing the HP on all structures. The entire point of this is to remove the necessity of shooting structures.
Amyclas Amatin SUNDERING Goonswarm Federation 638	Posted - 2015.03.09 14:34:17 - [125] - Quote Tora Bushido wrote: Capqu wrote: Tora Bushido wrote: Capqu wrote: remove interceptor bubble immunity Dont, as the newbies from high-sec use them to explore null-sec. The size of the ships isnt the problem. It's the speed. So keep your focus speedmods. thats the problem, newbies shouldn't be able to roam null with impunity in a 25m isk ship Yes, they should or null-sec will become even more boring without fresh blood. I hope high-sec carebears don't make you worry to much to care Amyclas Amatin wrote: When I was a newbie, I actually had to learn to deal with bubbles! Now the general population is pretty bubble ignorant. First you let them see the bubbles, then you let them learn about bubbles. If a newbie go's to null-sec and keeps dieing at the first gate, he'll never be motivated enough to go there again. I find my newbies through conscription... Then fear and cake keeps them in line. 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?"
Kaylee Fonza Purgatory Afterglow 1	Posted - 2015.03.09 14:34:25 - [126] - Quote Querns wrote: Capqu wrote: if the grid is contested inteceptors are actually useless guys, their lockrange is so pathetic that one or two damps means there is no way they can keep their entosis link active i think the main issue around interceptors is their ability to move 100% safely behind camps and entosis uncontested systems which should be protected by camped choke points This is the core of the issue. As a sov haver of any size, I should be able to use the geography of my holdings in its defense. Being able to deny entry to my holdings should pay dividends in the security of my empire. Interceptors ignore all geography because, while traveling, they cannot be caught. Interceptors also have superlative disengagement ability, which converts the entire process of defending sov from defeating a gang of rabble-rousers to keepign a large group of counter-interceptors in a central location during your primetime, then dispatching them as blips pop up on the Sov Radar of choice. No actual PvP occurs in this scenario, it's just two interceptors weakly applying the sov laser to the same target in an attempt to bore each other into submission. Alternatively, I guess you could park a single supercap on every possible defensive target during your primetime. Thanks to fatigue, this is more viable than you'd think. Unless one of the interceptor brings damps, and wins the sov laser fight
Ned Thomas Signal Cartel EvE-Scout Enclave 1085	Posted - 2015.03.09 14:34:43 - [127] - Quote Acquisition Therapy wrote: Fozzie, It would be extremely helpful if you would lend us your current working ideas for specific fitting requirements i.e. cpu/pg and any rig changes the modules might impose, to both squash our trollceptor fears and also allow us to discuss what ships can fit it in your current design, and what else they can fit in addition to the link. Then meaningful and constructive feedback can begin on the link. Without it, its kind of like the wizard of oz telling us not to look behind the curtain. Thanks for your hard work. Something tells me the fitting requirements are one of the key things that are in flux until after the community throws out every whacky fit it can dream up. In the same vein, though, it'd be nice to know what the capacitor requirements are for the thing. Personally, I'm hoping it's something like 20pg/50cpu for the T1, 30pg/60cpu for T2, and both consume something around 100 cap per cycle. Don't get lost alone - Join Signal Cartel, New Eden's premier haven for explorers! Onward to Thera with Eve Scout
Eli Apol Pro Synergy 322	Posted - 2015.03.09 14:34:43 - [128] - Quote rsantos wrote: 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. Goal #5: Provide significant strategic benefits from living in your space. "Hell no, we just want to inhabit the choke point border systems with our blobs of PvPers and rent out the middle to bears"
Dave Stark 7410	Posted - 2015.03.09 14:35:08 - [129] - Quote afkalt wrote: So how is camping a gate at chokes for 4 hours different from defending structures for 4 hours? How is that not the same overhead on the players? because choke points require significantly less man hours, for a start.
Kale Freeman dirt 'n' glitter 38	Posted - 2015.03.09 14:35:40 - [130] - Quote Arkon Olacar wrote: John McCreedy wrote: Kale Freeman wrote: What about ditching the whole Entosis link entirely. Make a Entosis deployable. It takes 10 minutes to come online. It needs to be deployed within 25/250km of the objective. Once it is online and there are no more enemy entosis deployables on grid the owner can right click it and instruct it to attack/hack the objective. It would be an SBU by another name. Every sov holding alliance would anchor them on their structures, much as they do now with SBUs on every gate. We need a system that's balanced for both attacker and defender, not one or the other. If this had mobile deployable EHP, rather than SBU EHP, this would be less of an issue for the attackers. A few minutes for a gang to grind it down (rather than hours) would be fine. Also make it non-pickup-able. So a troll interceptor would not be able to pick it up and move it to the next system as soon as defense appears.

Vincent Athena V.I.C.E. 3203	Posted - 2015.03.09 14:35:44 - [131] - Quote CCP Fozzie wrote: ... 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 may actually be the issue, right here. As a defender, I can maintain control of the grid by keeping a fleet there. But that is not practical. Players come to eve to play, not sit on a node. Thus, most all structures will have no one on grid, until an attacker shows up. At that point, a single attacker in a frig is "controlling the grid", and requires a response to take that control back. Result: Attackers in a few evasion ships, or just cheap ships can troll the defenders endlessly. Maybe they use interceptors so they can burn off until they can warp, maybe they use cheap ships and just cycle through them as they get exploded. Recommendation: The attacker should have to make at least a "small roaming gang" level of commitment. Know a Frozen fan? Check this out Frozen fanfiction
Capqu Love Squad Confederation of xXPIZZAXx 1065	Posted - 2015.03.09 14:37:57 - [132] - Quote The Mittani wrote: Though it may come as a surprise to some, I'm a big fan of the new system, with some tweaks around the edges - tweak the links a little and I'm happy with them. Here are some options I'd be in favor of w/r/t Entosis Links . None of these ideas are mine - they come from Xttz, Progodlegend, or are otherwise ubiquitous across the community. Interdiction Nullifiers could interfere with the activation of an Entosis Link - T3s would need to refit a different subsystem once at a target via a moble depot, and the mods would not work at all with interceptors. Once activated, the Entosis Link could disable any fitted propulsion mod, like siege/triage currently. Progodlegend's idea - we could limit the link module to cruiser class hulls and above via cpu/pg. I'd be happy with any/all of the above three tweaks. Cheers! disagree with the propulsion part, if you can't prop mod then you cant reasonably expect small gang fights to be enabled by a running link. it would be too easy to kill/counter the linking ship and i think the intention behind it is that the link itself does not impact the fight, more enables it. say you wanted to brawl some nerds in a drake, you just fit an entosis in the high and local now comes and fights you - perfect. if the drake cant prop mod though it's severely gimped in said fight however like pretty much everyone is saying interceptors being able to pick where and when they want to run the links regardless of camping is the main problem and the first point would negate that i'm more in favour of interceptor nerfs in general in the form of complete removal of the immunity to non targeted interdiction, but if thats not something ccp want to consider then i hope they restrict them from being able to use the link in some other way https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPntjTPWgKE
Groperson GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 56	Posted - 2015.03.09 14:38:10 - [133] - Quote I like the distributed fights aspect and unlinking of the capturing sov objectives to EHP, which lowers the barrier to contesting sov. However, there are broken aspects to the current iteration of fozziesov. I'll give you a hint on how sov warfare is conducted. It is won not through battles or by winning the game system, but by griefing the opposing side into not wanting to play the game anymore. The fozziesov mechanic is perfect for that. If you just want to grief the defender into quitting the game then taking their sov when their willpower is gone and the body has stopped twitching. 1.You send your forces to just reinforce their stuff for 3 weeks in a row. (a 150 man inteceptor roam every 48 hours) 2. Don't bother contesting the 48 hour reinforce capture nodes. 3. The defender has to do 10x as much work as you do attacking, just to keep their space. then when they are burnt out and suicidal. You take it all/ get them to pay rent to you/ leave Fozzie sov has all the advantages for the attacker and is inherently disadvantaged for the defender since they are forced to do 10 the amount of work as the attacker just to keep parity. i.e. not lose their home. The attacker does not have to fight the defender at all to grief them out of their space. A 150 man interceptor fleet can emerge out of a wormhole, and be reinforcing the region as soon as they leave. Now, if entosis links can be fit on interceptors it's even more in favor of the attacker, since they have to risk nothing at all. Interceptors have no risk in combat, they are the most disengagable doctrine you can bring, where they can run every single time and you cannot catch them. The gameplay provided by roaming interceptor gangs is terrible, terrible content for the defender. An insta align interceptor cannot be caught in preplanned traps with bubbles and instalockers (the hard counter). If they warp from gate to gate they literally cannot be caught. Right now, the extent of their power is ganking ratters with impunity. You are proposing that a no risk interceptor gang can now attack sov. You are allowing the attacker to risk nothing, a completely disposable interceptor that will very likely never be caught. Whilst the defender risks their entire home and are forced to come out and fight and do 10x the amount of work if they aren't quick enough. That is pushing it far too much in the favor of the attacker. I ask you to make it so that the attackers must risk something if they want to attack sov, be it a cruiser or battlecruiser or above. At least they can be caught. I understand your worry of 'artifically shifting the meta towards larger ships', but if you if you allow interceptors or frigate sized ships to capture sov then you will artifically shifted the meta towards frigate killing/max mobility, since they will be the most optimal choice to attack. I say this, as the CFC, we will be fine, we by and large live in and use our space. I understand you are trying to break up the mega coalitons like the CFCand N3. Unfortunately, that means anyone who isn't an well organised or resourced at the mega coalitions is gonna suffer far worse than them. And with this sov system in it's current form, they are going to live purely at the mercy of the larger blocs. It will be even worse than now.
Alexander McKeon Blackwater USA Inc. Pandemic Legion 88	Posted - 2015.03.09 14:38:29 - [134] - 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 guy gets it. What the entosis link module as currently envisaged does is create a massive asymmetry in effort and expense betwixt the aggressor and defender; creating a dozen combat timers is far easier than defending the sixty systems which those timers could represent. There is also greatly differentiated risk in terms of assets required to defend versus to force a defense. If Brave can't muster the warm bodies, who in Eve could?
davet517 Caldari Provisions Caldari State 58	Posted - 2015.03.09 14:39:31 - [135] - Quote Mikka Raikkonen wrote: No, we'll commit 10 interceptors to 50 hubs. You might kill a few of us if you can catch them, but far more likely you'll spend your time chasing your tail, and we'll come back. Again. and again. And again until you go mad and stop showing up. Hell we probably wouldn't even bother to contest the subsequent command node fights. Nope, just make you recapture them constantly. If you think that that sounds boring as hell for you as a defender and even more so for us as an attacker to the point where we wouldn't do that, consider the following: . And you think that N3, and 18,000 strong Brave, can't do that to you, and your renters too? Who exactly do you think you're going to be griefing like this who can't do it back? We're not talking about suiciding miners and haulers in high-sec here where the hapless have no recourse. I think you're imagining griefing a small sov holder who does not exist, and won't exist, unless and until the power blocs break up. The unaligned aren't going to sit still for you to grief them. They're going to hit you from NPC space and laugh until you get tired of being hit.
EvilweaselFinance BUTTECORP INC Goonswarm Federation 593	Posted - 2015.03.09 14:39:37 - [136] - Quote John McCreedy wrote: Same could be achieved under Dominion sov just by reducing the HP on all structures. The entire point of this is to remove the necessity of shooting structures. I'm not arguing in favor of this idea yet (I haven't really figured out how I feel about it). But this argument just doesn't hold water: what made Dominion horrid is the structures have massive EHP, and the system simply does not work without the massive EHP (you'd just have people alphaing the ihub even while it was defended). This "deployable" idea would be that you have to deploy it and then hold the grid, but it's trivial to kill it without support. If the module costs 20-80m and has the EHP of a cruiser or even a battleship people will go around popping them left and right just for fun if someone tries to deploy them defensively. If someone tries to deploy them as a troll without intending to fight to defend them, the defenders will get free killmails - or they aren't paying attention and will lose their sov. It still is adding structures, but it is a pretty elegant solution that completely takes shiptypes out of the equation, which means you can far more easily balance it - it's basic balancing features are cost/ehp and that's about it. No worrying about what happens if you put it on ship X or ship Y and if that breaks things, and it has no effect on the meta at all - you have to win the gridfight. Now that I reason it all out perhaps I am in favor of the idea :v:
John McCreedy Eve Defence Force The Kadeshi 158	Posted - 2015.03.09 14:40:22 - [137] - Quote Kale Freeman wrote: Arkon Olacar wrote: John McCreedy wrote: Kale Freeman wrote: What about ditching the whole Entosis link entirely. Make a Entosis deployable. It takes 10 minutes to come online. It needs to be deployed within 25/250km of the objective. Once it is online and there are no more enemy entosis deployables on grid the owner can right click it and instruct it to attack/hack the objective. It would be an SBU by another name. Every sov holding alliance would anchor them on their structures, much as they do now with SBUs on every gate. We need a system that's balanced for both attacker and defender, not one or the other. If this had mobile deployable EHP, rather than SBU EHP, this would be less of an issue for the attackers. A few minutes for a gang to grind it down (rather than hours) would be fine. Also make it non-pickup-able. So a troll interceptor would not be able to pick it up and move it to the next system as soon as defense appears. It would require a small fleet to disrupt sov which in itself would be seen as a threat and therefore require a response which would lead to more content. But what's to stop the defender from undocking 150 angry dudes? Doesn't this just lead to escalation which is what the proposed change is meant to remove? That said, is there anything wrong with escalation initially? It would make sov disruption multi-layered. Brute force for stage one, mobility for stage two? It might be more interesting this way.
EvilweaselFinance BUTTECORP INC Goonswarm Federation 593	Posted - 2015.03.09 14:42:38 - [138] - Quote John McCreedy wrote: It would require a small fleet to disrupt sov which in itself would be seen as a threat and therefore require a response which would lead to more content. But what's to stop the defender from undocking 150 angry dudes? Doesn't this just lead to escalation which is what the proposed change is meant to remove? escalation is good because it means fights: a small fleet getting a response from the defender and fighting is great if you attack someone and get immediately outnumbered by a local defense fleet, you picked a fight above your weight class and should work on some less densely populated space
Eli Apol Pro Synergy 323	Posted - 2015.03.09 14:42:48 - [139] - Quote Groperson wrote: 1.You send your forces to just reinforce their stuff for 3 weeks in a row. (a 150 man inteceptor roam every 48 hours) 2. Don't bother contesting the 48 hour reinforce capture nodes. 3. The defender has to do 10x as much work as you do attacking, just to keep their space. then when they are burnt out and suicidal. You take it all/ get them to pay rent to you/ leave Remind me how this isn't worse for an alliance that holds even more systems and might have THOUSANDS of timers per day to deal with if they don't defend the initial RF effectively? Not to mention the organisational effort in making sure they're all dealt with in a timely manner. Sounds like a cause for faster burnout to me but what would I know, I'm just a salvager
Maximus Andendare The Scope Gallente Federation 921	Posted - 2015.03.09 14:43:08 - [140] - Quote Arkon Olacar wrote: 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! I think you're missing the point. (Not just you, but you stated your (major Sov holder's) point eloquently enough.) If it's a bother to defend your sovereignty, then 1) maybe you should question the amount you possess and 2) if you're not willing to put forth the effort to defend it, then perhaps it should be lost. I'm not speaking specifically to the trollceptor "ruckus" per se; it's more addressing the complaints that defending sovereignty will be too difficult. Sovereignty shouldn't so easy to defend that you can do it with a corp full of dis-interested recruits. If you want to keep sov, then it should be something that you and your corp want to defend. As it is, CCP is giving Sov holders the ability to lock out people from reinforcing their structures until a time set by the owner. If the owner can't find it in them to defend their home in a nice four hour block of their choosing, then it sounds more like the sov holder should reassess their priorities. Step onto the battlefield, and you're already dead, born again at the end of the battle to live on and fight another day. >> Play Dust 514 FREE! Sign up for exclusive gear today! <<

SilentAsTheGrave Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective 52	Posted - 2015.03.09 14:43:16 - [141] - Quote Gorski Car wrote: There are so many things you can do to counter trollceptors I cant help but think that this is a vocal minority overreacting and creating doomsday scenarios. That is exactly what all this is. The fat and lazy coalitions see this as a threat to being able to control their territory so they are screaming at the top of their lungs. These changes are great and the sooner they get here, the better.
Dave Stark 7411	Posted - 2015.03.09 14:43:31 - [142] - Quote davet517 wrote: The unaligned aren't going to sit still for you to grief them. They're going to hit you from NPC space and laugh until you get tired of being hit. but when the idea is "being as annoying as ******* possible", the cfc have everyone beat hands down really don't they?
DeadDuck The Legion of Spoon Curatores Veritatis Alliance 134	Posted - 2015.03.09 14:44:03 - [143] - Quote Harkin Issier 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. Kiting trollceptors need LOTS of room to burn around in, putting them in the 100+km range. All you need to do to counter them is fit sensor damps. Congrats, your interceptor is now useless. "Step into my fleet's optimal range", said the Lachesis to the Crow. Hey what about if the troll ceptor comes with 3 or 4 normal ceptors along? What you think will happen to the maulus or whatever ? It's the question of agility also... a ceptor can be in 1 system and 5 minutes after can be at 10 jumps out doing the same thing again... to the same alliance...
Jack Hayson Atztech Inc. Ixtab. 111	Posted - 2015.03.09 14:46:56 - [144] - Quote CCP Fozzie wrote: The optimal strategy for fighting over a location with the Entosis Link should be to gain effective control of the grid. With that in mind I don't really get why the T2 E-link have such an insane range. You only need that range when you don't have control of the grid. Or maybe increase the fitting cost for the T2 module so that it can only be reasonably used by BS/BC without gimping your fit to discourage fitting them on range kiting ships. But generally I think it would be better to just reduce the range by a lot.
Admiral Goberius Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion 21	Posted - 2015.03.09 14:47:05 - [145] - Quote As others suggested, you should have classes of Entmosis like you have classes of rigs: Frig Cruiser BS Capital Keep the same range but make it so a higher class link trumps lower class link: Interceptors/ cov ops / svipuls trolling your space? Chase in stabbers and secure the link Nano orthrus trolling with 10mn mwd? Ishtars burning at mondorange? Sit BSes on the target and ignore them >This would also reward committing heavier and less mobile comps to the game of sov< >Including giving a buff and strategic role to battleship doctrines< Whether or not capital links trumping all other links is op or not might be debatable, but let's not forget using caps for the constellation wide command points chase makes the moving caps extremely vulnerable including the one that cannot be repped for 10 minutes while running the capital entomosis link. PS: silly gunas its called a WINDRUNNER not a fozzieclaw you jokers
SilentAsTheGrave Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective 52	Posted - 2015.03.09 14:47:27 - [146] - Quote Amyclas Amatin wrote: Will Entosis links do anything to ship velocity? If they don't, even if you don't allow frigates to fit them, we will troll in orthruses or 10mn AB tactical destroyers. It's like you keep ignoring the fact I can just skip over and stop you with my own Entosis link. Why do you keep doing this??
Elenahina Agony Unleashed Agony Empire 190	Posted - 2015.03.09 14:47:38 - [147] - Quote John McCreedy wrote: Doesn't this just lead to escalation which is what the proposed change is meant to remove? That said, is there anything wrong with escalation initially? There really is nothing wrong with escalation, in and of itself, if the target demands it, The issue we have witht he current meta is that every target demands it, because you have to burn through a gajillion EHP to get anywhere. So the attackers bring their biggest guns in bulk, because they don't want to be there for three days shooting structures. So now the defender has two choices - respond in kind, or stay home. I have lived in sov entities that have crunched the numbers, and stood down from a timer fight because there was no way they could win it with the people available. That is what shouldn't be happening. Agony Unleashed is Recruiting - Small Gang PvP in Null Sec
SilentAsTheGrave Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective 52	Posted - 2015.03.09 14:51:20 - [148] - Quote Huffy Dragon[b wrote: ]Make them only fit to command ships and T1 (no faction) battleships. Time to revive some dead shipclasses.[/b] I don't fear the entosis-ceptor on grid. I fear the entosis-ceptor crossing an entire region in 10 minutes, escaping gatecamps and ninja-reinforcing everywhere. He just said this was not an option and gave a very good reason why. Did you even bother reading it?
Aiyshimin Fistful of Finns Triumvirate. 438	Posted - 2015.03.09 14:52:14 - [149] - Quote Remember folks, interceptors are unkillable, unstoppable machines of destruction, unlike slowcat and super blobs. When the enemy drops ceptors on the field, you know the fight is pretty much over.
rsantos Mosquito Squadron Mordus Angels 31	Posted - 2015.03.09 14:52:30 - [150] - Quote EvilweaselFinance wrote: rsantos wrote: 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. people who are unable to own sov sure seem to have strong opinions on what other people should have to do to hold sov while demanding the absolute minimum effort on their part If I wanted to own sov all I had to do was to join CFC or NC. I had plenty of invites! Don't think your special!

Panther X High Flyers The Kadeshi 94	Posted - 2015.03.09 14:52:39 - [151] - Quote The Mittani wrote: Though it may come as a surprise to some, I'm a big fan of the new system, with some tweaks around the edges - tweak the links a little and I'm happy with them. Here are some options I'd be in favor of w/r/t Entosis Links . None of these ideas are mine - they come from Xttz, Progodlegend, or are otherwise ubiquitous across the community. Interdiction Nullifiers could interfere with the activation of an Entosis Link - T3s would need to refit a different subsystem once at a target via a moble depot, and the mods would not work at all with interceptors. Once activated, the Entosis Link could disable any fitted propulsion mod, like siege/triage currently. Progodlegend's idea - we could limit the link module to cruiser class hulls and above via cpu/pg. I'd be happy with any/all of the above three tweaks. Cheers! Here's a thought; the Entosis Link kills your targeting range, -75%, rather than the ridiculous 250km range. You have to be on top of it, rather than kite from 250km. I still think a triple plated triple repped abaddon would be the way to go with it. but that's just me. My super smells of rich Corinthian Leather
Edward Olmops DUST Expeditionary Team Good Sax 276	Posted - 2015.03.09 14:52:43 - [152] - Quote Querns wrote: The interceptor disengages, and uses its superior agility and warp speed to move to another capturable object. The celestis cannot keep up with an interceptor. The ability for an interceptor to be countered while sitting at one beacon was never in question. The interceptor's ability to disengage and travel with impunity is the issue. Then... think of Ghost Sites. Make it so that breaking the Entosis link does like 25k EXP damage (I am sure CCP Falcon will find a reason why that happens). Interceptor disengages -> Poof. Gets jammed or RSDed -> Poof. (ok, please do not discuss whether a Svipul could possibly tank that - you get the idea)
Kassasis Dakkstromri Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation 290	Posted - 2015.03.09 14:52:51 - [153] - Quote Quote: "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." Translation: We are going to give you a broken mechanic that 'can' be exploited from day one -- and will iterate on it at some later date after enough pain has been applied to the large empire blocs of Null (CFC specifically), and then months and months later we'll patch it CCP's 'bar' for deeming something broken is very low when the Null blocs use it, and very high for when the rabble use it.... just bear that in mind everyone. Some will say 'that's okay!' -- but shouldn't our sub fees go towards producing things that aren't released broken? Entosis Links should not be able to be fit on Interceptors - period CCP you are bad at EVE... Stop potential silliness ~ Solo Wulf
davet517 Caldari Provisions Caldari State 59	Posted - 2015.03.09 14:54:23 - [154] - Quote Alexander McKeon wrote: This guy gets it. What the entosis link module as currently envisaged does is create a massive asymmetry in effort and expense betwixt the aggressor and defender; creating a dozen combat timers is far easier than defending the sixty systems which those timers could represent. There is also greatly differentiated risk in terms of assets required to defend versus to force a defense. If Brave can't muster the warm bodies, who in Eve could? Yes. It is exactly asymmetric warfare. It does create a massive asymmetry, but, it counters the massive asymmetry in resources that exists in the game at present. An asymmetry that, if left unchecked, grows trillion after trillion. How many months of trillion isk income do you need before you are, for all intents, untouchable by anyone other than someone else who has trillion isk income? I get that you'd like attackers to have to commit super-caps so that you can 3rd party in and kill them. I do. I've played that game. It's fun, but it's not good for the future prospects of the game. Between moons and renter income the asymmetry in resources has gotten way out of hand. A mechanic that makes wealth matter a lot less is probably exactly what's needed. I say that while sitting in a pimped Titan that I probably will have trouble giving away if this goes through.
John McCreedy Eve Defence Force The Kadeshi 158	Posted - 2015.03.09 14:54:42 - [155] - Quote EvilweaselFinance wrote: John McCreedy wrote: It would require a small fleet to disrupt sov which in itself would be seen as a threat and therefore require a response which would lead to more content. But what's to stop the defender from undocking 150 angry dudes? Doesn't this just lead to escalation which is what the proposed change is meant to remove? escalation is good because it means fights: a small fleet getting a response from the defender and fighting is great if you attack someone and get immediately outnumbered by a local defense fleet, you picked a fight above your weight class and should work on some less densely populated space You caught the thread before I edited it. Basically it provides a multi-layered approach to sov disruption. Brute force attack for putting stuff in to reinforce mode, mobility for the actual capture. But you would need a longer timer than two minutes. There's no way an average alliance is going to be able to throw max dudes in to a properly organised fleet inside two minutes.
EvilweaselFinance BUTTECORP INC Goonswarm Federation 596	Posted - 2015.03.09 14:56:44 - [156] - Quote davet517 wrote: Yes. It is exactly asymmetric warfare. It does create a massive asymmetry, but, it counters the massive asymmetry in resources that exists in the game at present. An asymmetry that, if left unchecked, grows trillion after trillion. How many months of trillion isk income do you need before you are, for all intents, untouchable by anyone other than someone else who has trillion isk income? infinity months, once supercaps are no longer the end-all of nullsec fights. isk isn't power.
Amyclas Amatin SUNDERING Goonswarm Federation 639	Posted - 2015.03.09 14:56:47 - [157] - Quote SilentAsTheGrave wrote: Amyclas Amatin wrote: Will Entosis links do anything to ship velocity? If they don't, even if you don't allow frigates to fit them, we will troll in orthruses or 10mn AB tactical destroyers. It's like you keep ignoring the fact I can just skip over and stop you with my own Entosis link. Why do you keep doing this?? Hah. Made you babysit the structure by putting your own ship in the open. Objective complete. Rinse and repeat until you run out of people willing to do that for 4 hours a day. 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?"
Aiyshimin Fistful of Finns Triumvirate. 439	Posted - 2015.03.09 14:56:52 - [158] - Quote Jack Hayson wrote: CCP Fozzie wrote: The optimal strategy for fighting over a location with the Entosis Link should be to gain effective control of the grid. With that in mind I don't really get why the T2 E-link have such an insane range. You only need that range when you don't have control of the grid. Or maybe increase the fitting cost for the T2 module so that it can only be reasonably used by BS/BC without gimping your fit to discourage fitting them on range kiting ships. But generally I think it would be better to just reduce the range by a lot. The fact that there's two different type of sov beams ensures that no single tactic can dominate in every situation. If your attacker brings kite beam, you can just go at 0 on the structure with armor comp and laugh at them. If the defenders bring a 500-man triage Domi ball at 0, you kite them with your 100 Ishtars. If there's would be only the short range Entoffee Link, the side with bigger armor T3 gang would automatically win.
Arkon Olacar Bearded BattleBears Brave Collective 501	Posted - 2015.03.09 14:57:20 - [159] - Quote Maximus Andendare wrote: Arkon Olacar wrote: 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! I think you're missing the point. (Not just you, but you stated your (major Sov holder's) point eloquently enough.) If it's a bother to defend your sovereignty, then 1) maybe you should question the amount you possess and 2) if you're not willing to put forth the effort to defend it, then perhaps it should be lost. I'm not speaking specifically to the trollceptor "ruckus" per se; it's more addressing the complaints that defending sovereignty will be too difficult. Sovereignty shouldn't so easy to defend that you can do it with a corp full of dis-interested recruits. If you want to keep sov, then it should be something that you and your corp want to defend. As it is, CCP is giving Sov holders the ability to lock out people from reinforcing their structures until a time set by the owner. If the owner can't find it in them to defend their home in a nice four hour block of their choosing, then it sounds more like the sov holder should reassess their priorities. Bolded the important part. You've hit the nail on the head here. These mechanics cause too much grief for the defender to be worth the benefits of holding sov. The end result will be people moving out of sov null, with sov holders largely staging and living out of nearby NPC nullsec or lowsec, holding regions as a form of content generation rather than actually living there. These mechanics as currently proposed would kill off nullsec, not revitalise it. Warping to zero
MonkeyBusiness Thiesant randomly named no tax corp v2 43	Posted - 2015.03.09 15:00:31 - [160] - Quote If "controlling the grid" is roughly the guiding ideal, having any significant range on the entosi-links would seem to be counterproductive.

Aiyshimin Fistful of Finns Triumvirate. 439	Posted - 2015.03.09 15:01:07 - [161] - Quote Amyclas Amatin wrote: SilentAsTheGrave wrote: Amyclas Amatin wrote: Will Entosis links do anything to ship velocity? If they don't, even if you don't allow frigates to fit them, we will troll in orthruses or 10mn AB tactical destroyers. It's like you keep ignoring the fact I can just skip over and stop you with my own Entosis link. Why do you keep doing this?? Hah. Made you babysit the structure by putting your own ship in the open. Objective complete. Rinse and repeat until you run out of people willing to do that for 4 hours a day. It's almost as you're thinking that it's easier for you to "troll" a system than it is for the defenders to decloak their sov beam alt on the structure and carry on with their lives One more time: You need to kill the other guy with the Entosis Link if you want your Entosis Link to have any effect.
afkalt Republic Military School Minmatar Republic 878	Posted - 2015.03.09 15:02:03 - [162] - Quote Dave Stark wrote: afkalt wrote: So how is camping a gate at chokes for 4 hours different from defending structures for 4 hours? How is that not the same overhead on the players? because choke points require significantly less man hours, for a start. So over-extended entities can easily hold their space by concentrating scarce player resources? It's almost as if these very changes were designed to shatter that paradigm isn't it? Trollceptors are an myth who will only threaten the over extended, the owners huge tracts of empty space out there. If you live in the space, these things are a fly to swat away (and get some juicy loot drops in the process). If you don't - they'll be a scourge - by design by all accounts. You'll have up to 40 minutes to stop them. NB: I do think that the defender should have occupancy bonuses applied inversely to defence timers - so at max level they "defend" an uncontested node 4x faster thus taking ~2 minutes of their time.
John McCreedy Eve Defence Force The Kadeshi 158	Posted - 2015.03.09 15:02:47 - [163] - Quote The Mittani wrote: Though it may come as a surprise to some, I'm a big fan of the new system, with some tweaks around the edges - tweak the links a little and I'm happy with them. Here are some options I'd be in favor of w/r/t Entosis Links . None of these ideas are mine - they come from Xttz, Progodlegend, or are otherwise ubiquitous across the community. Interdiction Nullifiers could interfere with the activation of an Entosis Link - T3s would need to refit a different subsystem once at a target via a moble depot, and the mods would not work at all with interceptors. Once activated, the Entosis Link could disable any fitted propulsion mod, like siege/triage currently. Progodlegend's idea - we could limit the link module to cruiser class hulls and above via cpu/pg. I'd be happy with any/all of the above three tweaks. Cheers! That still doesn't address the fundamental issue of any single pilot in your local has to be treated as a potential threat to your sovereignty during a four hour window which means boring the socks off some of your pilots. The problem with this thread is its looking solely at the Entosis link where as the problem with the Entosis link is when its coupled with a vulnerability window. The two issues go hand in hand. None of these ideas address that issue and all of them are dismissed in the initial post of this thread. I agree the sov proposal is a fine starting position but it needs refinement and none of these ideas achieve that.
Dunk Dinkle Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective 80	Posted - 2015.03.09 15:03:32 - [164] - Quote I'm excited to try the new system. Personally, I don't give much credence to the EFT Warriors. IMHO, you'll need to hold the grid to pull off a capture. A few ideas to consider: Industry: Any work done in the Industry UI, manufacturing, research, etc., should count toward the 'occupancy' industry calculation. That would lead to the better development of self-sufficient constellations that move resources around. Entosis Link Skill: Perhaps another skill becomes the requirement to use the T2 version? Logistics V, Anchoring V, Fleet Command I ? Or another skill that currently has a very limited use. Again, thanks for the hard work. We all look forward to trying the new system out.
Daalamira Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic 0	Posted - 2015.03.09 15:04:50 - [165] - Quote CCP Fozzie wrote: Hello folks. ... Thanks -Fozzie You really should go into politics, you just posted a wall of text without saying a damn thing relevant to the concerns of the community. If you are going to force this "entosis" mechanic on us at least make it somewhat logical. An Entosis Link should require you to create a stable link with the sov structure which as part of it's mechanic means you cannot move... let's logically tie this to the same reason we cannot move while opening a cynosural field perhaps? So far all I've seen in your Phase 1 and Phase 2 is the continued degradation of the game started by Greyscale. My interpretation of your phases so far... Phase 1: Turn regions owned by true power blocs into fortresses (Yes CFC lost a few regions, but they were overextended) Phase 2: Let high sec pubbies attempt to take sov so they can take it, go broke, and get sent back to high sec. (Small groups don't have the discipline, knowledge, or income to maintain sov. And don't tell me all systems in the game is worth holding, because the income in a -0.1 is nowhere near equal to the income available in a -1.0) Phase 3: ??? Do what we told you to do in the first place? I realize half of this is off topic for this thread, but I wanted it all in one place.
Kinis Deren StarHunt Mordus Angels 451	Posted - 2015.03.09 15:05:08 - [166] - Quote The Mittani wrote: Though it may come as a surprise to some, I'm a big fan of the new system, with some tweaks around the edges - tweak the links a little and I'm happy with them. Here are some options I'd be in favor of w/r/t Entosis Links . None of these ideas are mine - they come from Xttz, Progodlegend, or are otherwise ubiquitous across the community. Interdiction Nullifiers could interfere with the activation of an Entosis Link - T3s would need to refit a different subsystem once at a target via a moble depot, and the mods would not work at all with interceptors. Once activated, the Entosis Link could disable any fitted propulsion mod, like siege/triage currently. Progodlegend's idea - we could limit the link module to cruiser class hulls and above via cpu/pg. I'd be happy with any/all of the above three tweaks. Cheers! Nope. We'd end up with a "bubble border" around every coalition to stop anyone from threatening the current sov null paradigm. Allowing inties and T3's to fit and use the Entosis module prevents bubble spam being an effective strategy in nullifying the proposed sov mechanics. Play the game and defend your systems then you won't have any issues coping with lone interceptors.
Groperson GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 57	Posted - 2015.03.09 15:05:43 - [167] - Quote davet517 wrote: Alexander McKeon wrote: This guy gets it. What the entosis link module as currently envisaged does is create a massive asymmetry in effort and expense betwixt the aggressor and defender; creating a dozen combat timers is far easier than defending the sixty systems which those timers could represent. There is also greatly differentiated risk in terms of assets required to defend versus to force a defense. If Brave can't muster the warm bodies, who in Eve could? Yes. It is exactly asymmetric warfare. It does create a massive asymmetry, but, it counters the massive asymmetry in resources that exists in the game at present. An asymmetry that, if left unchecked, grows trillion after trillion. How many months of trillion isk income do you need before you are, for all intents, untouchable by anyone other than someone else who has trillion isk income? I get that you'd like attackers to have to commit super-caps so that you can 3rd party in and kill them. I do. I've played that game. It's fun, but it's not good for the future prospects of the game. Between moons and renter income the asymmetry in resources has gotten way out of hand. A mechanic that makes wealth matter a lot less is probably exactly what's needed. I say that while sitting in a pimped Titan that I probably will have trouble giving away if this goes through. Sure, allow the asymmetry in the attackers favor. But make the attackers have to commit something killable if they want to attack sov. A cruiser/ battlecruiser or above. The attackers still have a huge 10x timer advantage if they just want to grief the defender, but the defender can now actually get some good content from the attacker incursions, by killing the gangs that come through.
afkalt Republic Military School Minmatar Republic 878	Posted - 2015.03.09 15:06:39 - [168] - Quote John McCreedy wrote: The Mittani wrote: Though it may come as a surprise to some, I'm a big fan of the new system, with some tweaks around the edges - tweak the links a little and I'm happy with them. Here are some options I'd be in favor of w/r/t Entosis Links . None of these ideas are mine - they come from Xttz, Progodlegend, or are otherwise ubiquitous across the community. Interdiction Nullifiers could interfere with the activation of an Entosis Link - T3s would need to refit a different subsystem once at a target via a moble depot, and the mods would not work at all with interceptors. Once activated, the Entosis Link could disable any fitted propulsion mod, like siege/triage currently. Progodlegend's idea - we could limit the link module to cruiser class hulls and above via cpu/pg. I'd be happy with any/all of the above three tweaks. Cheers! That still doesn't address the fundamental issue of any single pilot in your local has to be treated as a potential threat to your sovereignty during a four hour window which means boring the socks off some of your pilots. The problem with this thread is its looking solely at the Entosis link where as the problem with the Entosis link is when its coupled with a vulnerability window. The two issues go hand in hand. None of these ideas address that issue and all of them are dismissed in the initial post of this thread. I agree the sov proposal is a fine starting position but it needs refinement and none of these ideas achieve that. You have warning - you can wait until they start. A cyno alt can stop their progress forcing them to either **** off, or come in to engage you. If you force them to engage, they can be trapped, caught and killed. Who doesnt have a bunch of cyno alts?
davet517 Caldari Provisions Caldari State 59	Posted - 2015.03.09 15:08:03 - [169] - Quote EvilweaselFinance wrote: infinity months, once supercaps are no longer the end-all of nullsec fights. isk isn't power. It's better, but I wouldn't say it makes isk irreverent either. How many entosis fit cruisers can you buy for a trillion isk? What it does do is make it really really hard to hold a sprawling empire just because you have that resource advantage. I think that a companion change is going to have to be made, though, that allows system resources to scale with the number of people who occupy it. Replacing anoms with plexing and mining missions would do it. Then, a 2000 strong alliance could occupy, be happy with, and defend a constellation or two, instead of feeling like they need a whole region or more.
rsantos Mosquito Squadron Mordus Angels 31	Posted - 2015.03.09 15:10:12 - [170] - Quote Alexander McKeon wrote: 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 guy gets it. What the entosis link module as currently envisaged does is create a massive asymmetry in effort and expense betwixt the aggressor and defender; creating a dozen combat timers is far easier than defending the sixty systems which those timers could represent. There is also greatly differentiated risk in terms of assets required to defend versus to force a defense. If Brave can't muster the warm bodies, who in Eve could? I still see this has the defending part owing too much sov.

SilentAsTheGrave Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective 53	Posted - 2015.03.09 15:13:34 - [171] - Quote Ann Markson wrote: While the Trolleceptor thing itself is a useless rage it adresses another issue. Currently the majority of Sov Null systems is worth **. CCP has the info and they are seeing boat loads of ISK being made in null. As in a LOT**! Sorry this ruins your argument.
Groperson GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 58	Posted - 2015.03.09 15:14:14 - [172] - Quote Kinis Deren wrote: The Mittani wrote: Though it may come as a surprise to some, I'm a big fan of the new system, with some tweaks around the edges - tweak the links a little and I'm happy with them. Here are some options I'd be in favor of w/r/t Entosis Links . None of these ideas are mine - they come from Xttz, Progodlegend, or are otherwise ubiquitous across the community. Interdiction Nullifiers could interfere with the activation of an Entosis Link - T3s would need to refit a different subsystem once at a target via a moble depot, and the mods would not work at all with interceptors. Once activated, the Entosis Link could disable any fitted propulsion mod, like siege/triage currently. Progodlegend's idea - we could limit the link module to cruiser class hulls and above via cpu/pg. I'd be happy with any/all of the above three tweaks. Cheers! Nope. We'd end up with a "bubble border" around every coalition to stop anyone from threatening the current sov null paradigm. Allowing inties and T3's to fit and use the Entosis module prevents bubble spam being an effective strategy in nullifying the proposed sov mechanics. Play the game and defend your systems then you won't have any issues coping with lone interceptors. The thing is, if you allow interceptors to attack sov. What do you risk as the attacker? Even in the most well defended region of space: deklein, you can just zoom interceptor gangs through with no risk because they are uncatchable. That' bubble spam' that you encounter is called 'the residents defending their space' You are advocating that even if residents defend their space, they will never be able to catch the people who are attacking it. That is broken, you risk nothing for attack and yet force the defenders to form a response and if it is insufficiently quick, do 10x the amount of work than the attackers. If you want to play at the sov game then you should have to risk something, if you allow entosis links on interceptors, the attacker risks nothing.
Querns GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 1411	Posted - 2015.03.09 15:14:26 - [173] - Quote davet517 wrote: EvilweaselFinance wrote: infinity months, once supercaps are no longer the end-all of nullsec fights. isk isn't power. It's better, but I wouldn't say it makes isk irreverent either. How many entosis fit cruisers can you buy for a trillion isk? What it does do is make it really really hard to hold a sprawling empire just because you have that resource advantage. I think that a companion change is going to have to be made, though, that allows system resources to scale with the number of people who occupy it. Replacing anoms with plexing and mining missions would do it. Then, a 2000 strong alliance could occupy, be happy with, and defend a constellation or two, instead of feeling like they need a whole region or more. Given that Deklein is, by far, the densest region in eve, I have to agree that density should breed more density in such an exponential fashion. This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
EvilweaselFinance BUTTECORP INC Goonswarm Federation 598	Posted - 2015.03.09 15:14:45 - [174] - Quote davet517 wrote: It's better, but I wouldn't say it makes isk irreverent either. How many entosis fit cruisers can you buy for a trillion isk? effectively infinity, which all sit in a station useless without the actual source of power in eve: people willing to fly them isk makes a number of things possible or a little easier but its effect on power rapidly diminishes after you get the basics done, which happens well before you get to the 1t/month stage virtually all wars in eve are won by making the players of the other side sick of logging in for one reason or another (deliberately denying fun, just pasting them often enough they know that they won't win the fight, etc.), not making their alliance broke. supercaps aside, the pilots you can get to log in and work together is vastly more important than the income your alliance has. the only real value isk has is in rewarding pilots for logging in or removing impediments for them to do so, but there's a real limit to how far you can spend isk that way.
Arkon Olacar Bearded BattleBears Brave Collective 501	Posted - 2015.03.09 15:15:05 - [175] - Quote rsantos wrote: I still see this has the defending part owing too much sov. Then how much sov is 'enough' sov for a 18k coalition? As clearly a single region is too much, according to our expert sov holder Mordus Angels. Warping to zero
EvilweaselFinance BUTTECORP INC Goonswarm Federation 601	Posted - 2015.03.09 15:17:50 - [176] - Quote SilentAsTheGrave wrote: Ann Markson wrote: While the Trolleceptor thing itself is a useless rage it adresses another issue. Currently the majority of Sov Null systems is worth **. CCP has the info and they are seeing boat loads of ISK being made in null. As in a LOT**! Sorry this ruins your argument. ccp are the drunk guy looking for his keys under the streetlight and not where he lost them isk itself is mostly generated in null. wealth does not correlate to isk generated: a miner makes ore, not isk, a mission runner makes LP, not isk, a manufacturer makes items, not isk those things then get CONVERTED to isk, but figuring out what that means income-wise is hard so CCP has just looked at raw isk generated and ignored all the other ways you make income.
Edward Olmops DUST Expeditionary Team Good Sax 276	Posted - 2015.03.09 15:17:56 - [177] - Quote Edward Olmops wrote: Querns wrote: The interceptor disengages, and uses its superior agility and warp speed to move to another capturable object. The celestis cannot keep up with an interceptor. The ability for an interceptor to be countered while sitting at one beacon was never in question. The interceptor's ability to disengage and travel with impunity is the issue. Then... think of Ghost Sites. Make it so that breaking the Entosis link does like 25k EXP damage (I am sure CCP Falcon will find a reason why that happens). Interceptor disengages -> Poof. Gets jammed or RSDed -> Poof. (ok, please do not discuss whether a Svipul could possibly tank that - you get the idea) Even better idea: What if the Entosis link uses charges? Say, the charges are priced in a way that any sov contesting ATTEMPT costs like [insert arbitrary amount here] (maybe 30mil? 50mil?) So if you get trolled by trollceptor, just chase him off until he's broke. As long as you are spacerich, you can keep trolling (as in all other parts of the game). Other people would have to decide whether it is really worth contesting a hundred objectives if they can't take more than 3 anyway. Note: don't know if I got this right, but the system NEEDS a mechanism that makes contested things return to uncontested state automatically in case neither attacker nor defender show up at a timer. Otherwise attackers could bore defenders to death by enforcing tons of timers with associated "orbiting tasks". But that's a different issue.
Agent Known Night Theifs DamnedNation 40	Posted - 2015.03.09 15:18:07 - [178] - Quote In regards to the trollceptor fit, I can't even get a cap stable fitting with any of the interceptors ...and only a handful of them have the PG and low slots for the aux cores to make a MWD fit. Plus, in doing so you're making them purpose-fit and useless for anything else. The defender has up to 40 minutes to contest an active system and pause all progress. This is assuming the interceptor makes it to the system to begin with. Empires who hold enough space for their size will be able to counter any of this nonsense. For one thing, intel channels are a thing and neutrals will be reported long before they have a chance to capture anything.
Callduron Corporate Scum Brave Collective 621	Posted - 2015.03.09 15:18:30 - [179] - Quote I think Damps will be a pretty hard counter to any trollceptor. Maybe a frigate that can lock to 80km and and move 8km/s sounds scary but a cheap Celestis dunks it completely. Just sit on the beacon and damp it, the ceptor has to come to within 20km and all sorts of tactics will kill a tankless frigate 20km away. I write http://stabbedup.blogspot.co.uk/ I post on reddit as /u/callduron.
SilentAsTheGrave Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective 54	Posted - 2015.03.09 15:19:02 - [180] - Quote The Mittani wrote: Though it may come as a surprise to some, I'm a big fan of the new system, with some tweaks around the edges - tweak the links a little and I'm happy with them. Here are some options I'd be in favor of w/r/t Entosis Links . None of these ideas are mine - they come from Xttz, Progodlegend, or are otherwise ubiquitous across the community. Interdiction Nullifiers could interfere with the activation of an Entosis Link - T3s would need to refit a different subsystem once at a target via a moble depot, and the mods would not work at all with interceptors. Once activated, the Entosis Link could disable any fitted propulsion mod, like siege/triage currently. Progodlegend's idea - we could limit the link module to cruiser class hulls and above via cpu/pg. I'd be happy with any/all of the above three tweaks. Cheers! I mentioned this in the first thread: My idea (if something must be done to deal with nullified ships) was to not allow them to fit or carry in their cargo the Entosis Link.

EvilweaselFinance BUTTECORP INC Goonswarm Federation 601	Posted - 2015.03.09 15:20:02 - [181] - Quote Callduron wrote: I think Damps will be a pretty hard counter to any trollceptor. Maybe a frigate that can lock to 80km and and move 8km/s sounds scary but a cheap Celestis dunks it completely. Just sit on the beacon and damp it, the ceptor has to come to within 20km and all sorts of tactics will kill a tankless frigate 20km away. you can easily get inty fits to well over 80km, especially once you get pairs of inties boosting each other this also is the same dumb response that ignores the interceptor can't be caught, merely its trolling made successful by forcing you to sit on a gate doing nothing but staring impotently at it, while it can then vary it up by moving on to the next system
Siival BOVRIL bOREers Mining CO-OP Brave Collective 0	Posted - 2015.03.09 15:20:23 - [182] - Quote So far I have thoroughly enjoyed the changes offered and I know I am in the vocal minority here. Some simple points to note that completely counter the constant nerd rage of all these people crying about troll ceptors. First of all, you must maintain a lock on the target, for the link to work. so if anything any EWAR sensor damping ship will completely, and entirely **** on this strat. Lock range damped to 20k, how to run now. T2 Light drones can also move at speeds greater than 5k with incredible ease. Missle boats that have increased velocity over time can counter this with relative easy. If you are not creative enough to work with the rules given, you are not deserving of the easy isk that comes with SOV. This system is designed to keep people active in the systems they control. Every is so worried about the first phase of SOV flipping I have heard little to no discussion about the second and third phases. ( excluding that free porting and 3rd partying are a bit silly ) Regardless speculation is what makes Eve great, and it really is what defines the great from the mediocre in regards to planning. But if you can't see past the first five seconds of conflict, you will always remain blind to opportunity for advancement. Something I do want to chime in about is the fact that most people are talking about SOV not even worth holding and as much as I love the concept of holding SOV I have to agree. If this new system is designed to make us more active in the systems we hold, and condense the population, then something really must be done to make SOV worth holding. I wish I had a reasonable idea of how this could be done without just teetering to my biased desires, but this is something I have full confidence other members of the community and the staff at CCP are fully capable of addressing and hopefully fixing.
SilentAsTheGrave Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective 54	Posted - 2015.03.09 15:20:29 - [183] - Quote Kale Freeman wrote: What about ditching the whole Entosis link entirely. Make a Entosis deployable. It takes 10 minutes to come online. It needs to be deployed within 25/250km of the objective. Once it is online and there are no more enemy entosis deployables on grid the owner can right click it and instruct it to attack/hack the objective. Oh, structure bashing... Are you even paying attention?
Querns GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 1412	Posted - 2015.03.09 15:21:41 - [184] - Quote Agent Known wrote: In regards to the trollceptor fit, I can't even get a cap stable fitting with any of the interceptors ...and only a handful of them have the PG and low slots for the aux cores to make a MWD fit. Plus, in doing so you're making them purpose-fit and useless for anything else. The defender has up to 40 minutes to contest an active system and pause all progress. This is assuming the interceptor makes it to the system to begin with. Empires who hold enough space for their size will be able to counter any of this nonsense. For one thing, intel channels are a thing and neutrals will be reported long before they have a chance to capture anything. You are probably trying to fit an oversized prop mod to an interceptor. You want to fit a 1MN Microwarp Drive. Every interceptor can fit a 1mn mwd without fitting issues. Also, train power grid management to 5. It's a rank 1 skill. This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
Altrue Exploration Frontier inc Brave Collective 1677	Posted - 2015.03.09 15:22:39 - [185] - Quote Hi Fozzie and thanks for making this thread CCP Fozzie wrote: 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. How do you intend to reach that goal on ships that don't have a utility high? As for the "trollceptors"... I understand that it can be a concern, but don't let yourself get metagamed on this one. Frigates and other ships should retain the ability to fit enthosis modules, but maybe you should add a few stats on the module? I'd suggest : - Max speed : 4000 m/s - Inertia modifier : x2 Signature Tanking Best Tanking
Eli Apol Pro Synergy 324	Posted - 2015.03.09 15:23:44 - [186] - Quote EvilweaselFinance wrote: Callduron wrote: I think Damps will be a pretty hard counter to any trollceptor. Maybe a frigate that can lock to 80km and and move 8km/s sounds scary but a cheap Celestis dunks it completely. Just sit on the beacon and damp it, the ceptor has to come to within 20km and all sorts of tactics will kill a tankless frigate 20km away. you can easily get inty fits to well over 80km, especially once you get pairs of inties boosting each other this also is the same dumb response that ignores the interceptor can't be caught, merely its trolling made successful by forcing you to sit on a gate doing nothing but staring impotently at it, while it can then vary it up by moving on to the next system Entosis link prevents remote boosts. But yeah a 2x sebo inty can do 100 something km. ...with no tank and no utility and no dps.
John McCreedy Eve Defence Force The Kadeshi 158	Posted - 2015.03.09 15:24:18 - [187] - Quote Elenahina wrote: John McCreedy wrote: Doesn't this just lead to escalation which is what the proposed change is meant to remove? That said, is there anything wrong with escalation initially? There really is nothing wrong with escalation, in and of itself, if the target demands it, The issue we have witht he current meta is that every target demands it, because you have to burn through a gajillion EHP to get anywhere. So the attackers bring their biggest guns in bulk, because they don't want to be there for three days shooting structures. So now the defender has two choices - respond in kind, or stay home. I have lived in sov entities that have crunched the numbers, and stood down from a timer fight because there was no way they could win it with the people available. That is what shouldn't be happening. I completely agree. I'm just against saying that players during a certain period of the day can't mine, can't rat, can't do anything other than camp up to three structures in a system in order to prevent a single Interceptor from disrupting the sov. That cannot be considered balanced. The problem with the deployable entosis module is that if its set to current deployable HP, it can quite easily be headshot straight off the field by the defender. The attacker deploys a couple of Triage Carriers to perma-rep it and it then becomes a HP grind the defender is unlikely to win before the system is hacked. So the attack brings Dreads to kill the Carriers. Yes, the more I think about this the more I see a deployable Entosis module being the way to go rather than a ship-based link. Escalation in this manner would lead to more fights but still allow alliances the choice. Smaller alliances could foregoe the need to defend the structures, banking on their smaller size increasing mobility and response times to better tackle the command node battle. Alliances more used to smaller fleets rather than F1 jockeys would have an easier time of it. Larger alliances might find use of their superior numbers easier to defend against vulnerability in the first place. It opens up more diversity in to the way we attack sov.
Querns GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 1412	Posted - 2015.03.09 15:26:48 - [188] - Quote Eli Apol wrote: But yeah a 2x sebo inty can do 100 something km. ...with no tank and no utility and no dps. It doesn't need these things to survive or be effective. This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
Murkar Omaristos The Alabaster Albatross Eternal Pretorian Alliance 99	Posted - 2015.03.09 15:27:56 - [189] - Quote Remove trollceptors as a possibility plz, kthx. And limit the number of entosis modules that can be activated against a target corp at one time so small gangs cant just all spread out to different systems and wreak total havoc.
Andy Koraka Blackwater USA Inc. Pandemic Legion 54	Posted - 2015.03.09 15:29:42 - [190] - Quote Add the same effects as an active HIC bubble to ships running active Entosis links: -90% velocity +sig bloom it is actually that easy to fix the trollceptor and make the attacker actually expose their ship to getting tackled/shot by a defender.

davet517 Caldari Provisions Caldari State 61	Posted - 2015.03.09 15:31:39 - [191] - Quote Arkon Olacar wrote: rsantos wrote: I still see this has the defending part owing too much sov. Then how much sov is 'enough' sov for a 18k coalition? As clearly a single region is too much, according to our expert sov holder Mordus Angels. Clearly, as things stand today they need that much space, or more. System resources really need to scale with the number of players occupying it, to a degree, and that should go hand in hand with how much space that many players could reasonably be expected to defend without being run ragged. Of their 18K, how many are logged in at any given time? 10%? 20%? Lets say it's 2000. If a system's resources could scale to 100 players more or less actively playing, Brave could fit in 20 systems, more or less, and easily defend that many without chasing their tails. They could certainly threaten and even take adjacent systems, but they'd have to be mindful of the downside of getting too spread out. That opens up space for new entrants. If you want a deterrent to systems getting too densely packed, start widening the "prime time" window once they exceed a certain threshold, forcing the sov holder to either spread out, or defend a bigger window.
Querns GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 1413	Posted - 2015.03.09 15:32:19 - [192] - Quote A disturbing trend by the balance team has been to "over-buff" things and then tone them down (years later) if media attention shames them into it. Have you considered, conversely, to risk a thing being underpowered at the start, then boosting its effectiveness? This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
Altrue Exploration Frontier inc Brave Collective 1677	Posted - 2015.03.09 15:32:37 - [193] - Quote Andy Koraka wrote: Add the same effects as an active HIC bubble to ships running active Entosis links: -90% velocity +sig bloom it is actually that easy to fix the trollceptor and make the attacker actually expose their ship to getting tackled/shot by a defender. -90% velocity and sig bloom is extremely bad when it comes to keeping every doctrine that is viable without enthosises a viable choice with them. You need to consider a penalty that doesn't harm most doctrines in the game. Capping the maximum velocity is one way to achieve this. If you cap it to say 3 or 4km/s, other ceptors can easily catch your trollceptor, while leaving virtually every other doctrine untouched by the change. Signature Tanking Best Tanking
Christopher Schmidt 2	Posted - 2015.03.09 15:33:27 - [194] - Quote not sure if this was brought up yet. But to like counter these trollinterceptors, how about you allow alliances to anchor pos guns/ewar on their sov structures, doesnt have to be dickstarish, just enough CPU for 5 small guns and a web or something. Problem solved, no more troll interceptors. http://germans-cartel.de/
Murkar Omaristos The Alabaster Albatross Eternal Pretorian Alliance 99	Posted - 2015.03.09 15:35:05 - [195] - Quote Also, you got nearly 200 pages of responses in 48 hours after posting this idea. Do you rly think "thanks but we're leaving it like this" is a satisfactory response to that? Fix the concerns that people have, don't just put a PR-bandaid on it.
GsyBoy Hooded Underworld Guys Northern Coalition. 12	Posted - 2015.03.09 15:36:00 - [196] - Quote Simples, only can be used by a rorq or an orca. If you can not defend, you should not own sov. Committment to taking sov then assured.
Capqu Love Squad Confederation of xXPIZZAXx 1066	Posted - 2015.03.09 15:36:36 - [197] - Quote Murkar Omaristos wrote: Also, you got nearly 200 pages of responses in 48 hours after posting this idea. Do you rly think "thanks but we're leaving it like this" is a satisfactory response to that? Fix the concerns that people have, don't just put a PR-bandaid on it. whats wrong with http://evemaps.dotlan.net/map/Delve/PR-8CA i've lived here a long time its a gr8 system https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPntjTPWgKE
ShesAForumAlt Federal Defense Union Gallente Federation 2	Posted - 2015.03.09 15:36:42 - [198] - Quote The single Trolletto or whatever the hell you want to call it doesn't bother me - A single meta 4 fitted Maulus can damp it down below 40km with a pair of damps and a Sebo to boost its own range. If the ceptor decides to trade speed for locking range, then simply fit signal amps - 3 signal amps + leadership bonus gives you nearly max targeting range. Add in to the fact you have plenty of room to fit your own Entosis Link (fitting room is even greater than the ceptor) so you can actively reverse the cap process. Ceptor is either forced to close to kill you or pisses off. The problem comes, as always in EVE, in scalability. The troll ceptor fit is easily able to run in massive numbers, so I could see a gang of 50 of them running into a constellation and reinforcing everything at once. This comes with little risk to the ceptors themselves. You might lose a couple, but in the end it'd be far too many to deal with at once and some structures would have to go into reinforce (or be offlined for station services). This happening day in and day out I think would be pretty crushing to any group. Not sure how to resolve that issue, or even if it isn't by design. This is totally my main.-á
SilentAsTheGrave Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective 57	Posted - 2015.03.09 15:37:04 - [199] - Quote The root cause of concern from groups who specialize in focusing all available man power onto into one system is they will have two choices: They continue with this exact same tactic and their massive territory shrinks down dramatically. As in just a handful of systems. They spread out across their territory. I'm not talking temporarily, but more like they are stationed to systems and constellations in order to maintain their empire. This will mean their blob is no more and they will not have the luxury of throwing thousands upon thousands of warm bodies at a problem to solve it. They will have to develop smaller scale combat skills, find a lot more fleet commanders, start dealing with their own logistics. The list goes on and on. This would also mean that smaller groups looking to get into null will only have to engage that smaller section to get a system or two. If that smaller defending section sounds the Horn of Gondor and everyone comes to their aid, it leaves the rest of their territory ripe for invasion, so they can't. It would mean more leaders and less relying on an ultra select few who reap all the benefits while tossing crumbs to the many. All these battles being spread across so many systems instead of every null entity cramming into one system means the odds of TiDi went way, way down. Over all a far better and enjoyable experience. It is pretty obvious which choice is better for the game as a whole. But, I'm sure those with vested interest in keeping things similar to what they are now will continue to scream the loudest.
rsantos Mosquito Squadron Mordus Angels 33	Posted - 2015.03.09 15:38:16 - [200] - Quote Arkon Olacar wrote: rsantos wrote: I still see this has the defending part owing too much sov. Then how much sov is 'enough' sov for a 18k coalition? As clearly a single region is too much, according to our expert sov holder Mordus Angels. I didn't said that. if the defender entity to defend a constellation has to leave all their other space at risk of reinforce and without protection then it owns to much space.

Yroc Jannseen Enlightened Industries Goonswarm Federation 68	Posted - 2015.03.09 15:40:30 - [201] - Quote Christopher Schmidt wrote: not sure if this was brought up yet. But to like counter these trollinterceptors, how about you allow alliances to anchor pos guns/ewar on their sov structures, doesnt have to be dickstarish, just enough CPU for 5 small guns and a web or something. Problem solved, no more troll interceptors. You're talking about either de-coupling POS's from moons or a whole new system of deployable guns. Not a simple solution at all.
John McCreedy Eve Defence Force The Kadeshi 162	Posted - 2015.03.09 15:42:36 - [202] - Quote Altrue wrote: Andy Koraka wrote: Add the same effects as an active HIC bubble to ships running active Entosis links: -90% velocity +sig bloom it is actually that easy to fix the trollceptor and make the attacker actually expose their ship to getting tackled/shot by a defender. -90% velocity and sig bloom is extremely bad when it comes to keeping every doctrine that is viable without enthosises a viable choice with them. You need to consider a penalty that doesn't harm most doctrines in the game. Capping the maximum velocity is one way to achieve this. If you cap it to say 3 or 4km/s, other ceptors can easily catch your trollceptor, while leaving virtually every other doctrine untouched by the change. It doesn't matter. The issue isn't with the ship on the grid, it's with a single person in local having to be considered a threat to your Sov during the vulnerability window so you have to have people camp the structures during it. One person being able to reinforce an entire system isn't balance, it's going from one extreme to the other. There has to be a middle ground between the two.
Arrendis GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 309	Posted - 2015.03.09 15:43:14 - [203] - Quote davet517 wrote: LT Alter wrote: 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. . He didn't say he'd send them all at once. What he's talking about is spamming cheap ships with links on them for as long as it takes. Which brings up a good point. Entosis links don't have to be expensive, but could they be uncommon? Say made from single run BPCs found by exploring? Would deter the "spamming" behavior described above that would be possible if you could crank out unlimited stockpiles of them. If they're uncommon, they'll be expensive. People will want to buy the BPCs, rather than go and get the BPCs on their own. Others will get the BPC with no intention of making Entosis Links - or of using Links, and either the BPC or the Links will go on sale for whatever price the market will bare. And the price will go up, the more uncommon these things are. In a market economy like EVE, you cannot decouple availability and price. Supply and demand, as it were.
Jason Dunham The Dark Space Initiative Scary Wormhole People 12	Posted - 2015.03.09 15:43:25 - [204] - Quote Perhaps some clarification of how the module functions would answer the questions in this thread. 1. Can the cycle of the entosis be stopped in the middle? If not then you can't just bugger off if someone shows up, you have to stay on grid until the cycle completes. 2. If you are jammed, or damped where you lose lock on the structure, does the entosis module deactivate, allowing you to warp off, or are you kept there until the cycle finishes with no effect? If not, then it would be more risky to activate the module, because like Bastion, Siege, or Triage you are committing to being on that grid until your cycle is done. I'd like more information on how the module works, but overall I think the change looks good. I see people worrying about how easy it would be to attack systems, but I think that misses the intent of the change. This change is meant to emphasize and reward occupancy. You should have no empty systems that an interceptor can go capture while you're doing something else. If you are active in your space you will have 40 minutes to go respond to the attack in your prime time. So if a group decides to reinforce a bunch of your systems at once with only a few ships or single interceptor at each, you will have the opportunity to form up a roam and respond to each of those attacks. If you are in a big enough group to occupy a lot of space, you should be able to form up multiple fleets to kill or drive the attackers away. These changes should shrink the blocks of territory that are controlled, making room for more groups in nullsec. It also (rightly) reduces the risk and cost of attacking sov. Fast frigates would be easily countered by sensor damps or jams, so you could either drive the attacker away or interfere with their progress while your fleet forms. You also have to investigate why you would attack sov after the changes. Sure, some people will do it to create content or annoy others, but I believe most will be more concerned about defending their space than trying to acquire more space that they will have to defend. The risk is low for a small attacking force, but that also means the cost to counter that attack is also low. The initial attack will occur at structures that the defenders put in place, meaning that they have plenty of time to put bookmarks all over them. I only see issues for groups that have lots of empty space, and for them the answer is to shrink their controlled space until they can occupy it.
SilentAsTheGrave Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective 57	Posted - 2015.03.09 15:43:58 - [205] - Quote DeadDuck wrote: Harkin Issier 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. Kiting trollceptors need LOTS of room to burn around in, putting them in the 100+km range. All you need to do to counter them is fit sensor damps. Congrats, your interceptor is now useless. "Step into my fleet's optimal range", said the Lachesis to the Crow. Hey what about if the troll ceptor comes with 3 or 4 normal ceptors along? What you think will happen to the maulus or whatever ? It's the question of agility also... a ceptor can be in 1 system and 5 minutes after can be at 10 jumps out doing the same thing again... to the same alliance... To be fair, do you really think that alliance who can only muster ONE guy to defend the territory in their prime time should have that sov?
Lorac Gemini Dropbears Anonymous Brave Collective 18	Posted - 2015.03.09 15:44:12 - [206] - Quote The simplest solution I think is just lowering the range of Entosis links. Trollceptors with a 100km radius bubble sphere of influence definitely makes them hard to handle. If you downgrade the ranges from 25km and 250km to 15km and 25km, their sphere of influence is much smaller, making it easier to both scram and web them. It also puts them within range of weapons that can drive them off the field, even if they won't outright blap them.
Arkon Olacar Bearded BattleBears Brave Collective 503	Posted - 2015.03.09 15:44:41 - [207] - Quote davet517 wrote: Arkon Olacar wrote: rsantos wrote: I still see this has the defending part owing too much sov. Then how much sov is 'enough' sov for a 18k coalition? As clearly a single region is too much, according to our expert sov holder Mordus Angels. Clearly, as things stand today they need that much space, or more. System resources really need to scale with the number of players occupying it, to a degree, and that should go hand in hand with how much space that many players could reasonably be expected to defend without being run ragged. Of their 18K, how many are logged in at any given time? 10%? 20%? Lets say it's 2000. If a system's resources could scale to 100 players more or less actively playing, Brave could fit in 20 systems, more or less, and easily defend that many without chasing their tails. They could certainly threaten and even take adjacent systems, but they'd have to be mindful of the downside of getting too spread out. That opens up space for new entrants. If you want a deterrent to systems getting too densely packed, start widening the "prime time" window once they exceed a certain threshold, forcing the sov holder to either spread out, or defend a bigger window. You see, this is why it's clear you're a moron. Napkin maths gives me a current nullsec population of 120k, plus another 15k non-sov holding NPC null dwellers, who would presumably be in for a piece of sov with these changes. If you're saying that a suitable amount of space for Brave is 20 systems, and we scale that across the current total population (including renters), then you're saying that everyone currently living in sov or npc nullsec should fit into 6% of the current systems out there, and if they try to hold more, they are overextended and shouldn't be able to defend that much space. 6%. How about no. Warping to zero
xttz GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 453	Posted - 2015.03.09 15:44:46 - [208] - Quote Will an active Entosis Link prevent cloaking?
Christopher Schmidt 2	Posted - 2015.03.09 15:44:59 - [209] - Quote Yroc Jannseen wrote: Christopher Schmidt wrote: not sure if this was brought up yet. But to like counter these trollinterceptors, how about you allow alliances to anchor pos guns/ewar on their sov structures, doesnt have to be dickstarish, just enough CPU for 5 small guns and a web or something. Problem solved, no more troll interceptors. You're talking about either de-coupling POS's from moons or a whole new system of deployable guns. Not a simple solution at all. actually a set of deployable guns that are only allowed to be launched on a grid with a sov structure would be very simple , CCP likes deployable structures, might start making some usefull ones then. http://germans-cartel.de/
Arkon Olacar Bearded BattleBears Brave Collective 504	Posted - 2015.03.09 15:47:46 - [210] - Quote Altrue wrote: Andy Koraka wrote: Add the same effects as an active HIC bubble to ships running active Entosis links: -90% velocity +sig bloom it is actually that easy to fix the trollceptor and make the attacker actually expose their ship to getting tackled/shot by a defender. -90% velocity and sig bloom is extremely bad when it comes to keeping every doctrine that is viable without enthosises a viable choice with them. You need to consider a penalty that doesn't harm most doctrines in the game. Capping the maximum velocity is one way to achieve this. If you cap it to say 3 or 4km/s, other ceptors can easily catch your trollceptor, while leaving virtually every other doctrine untouched by the change. Arbitary hard caps are a shockingly awful way to design game mechanics, absolutely not. A percentage based reduction in speed would be viable however. Maybe not 90%. Warping to zero

Vared Egody Fweddit I Whip My Slaves Back and Forth 0	Posted - 2015.03.09 15:48:58 - [211] - Quote I thought of adding to the discussion: For fitting requirments I'd like to suggest around 150CPU, haven't thought of a reasonable PG yet. Why 150? It should deter a droneboat as it would eat up a lot of its CPU that would be needed for Drone damage mods. Also Frigs would need to gimp their fit to put on one, or no guns etc. Also to ease the worries of trollceptors, activating an Entosis link could add 200-300% sig radius to offset the inherent bonuses of Interceptors V.
Murkar Omaristos The Alabaster Albatross Eternal Pretorian Alliance 99	Posted - 2015.03.09 15:50:37 - [212] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Quote: As much as possible, the Entosis Link capture progress should reflect which group has effective military control of the grid. This will not happen if frigates are allowed to use it. Quote: The optimal strategy for fighting over a location with the Entosis Link should be to gain effective control of the grid. Then make it disable prop mods as well, so people can't ***** out and kite their way through a sov capture. If their intent to attack the sov in a given system is genuine and not just trolling, then they'll have no problem fighting for control of the grid, instead of kiting until the other guy dies of boredom. One or both of those things should be implemented, if you are actually serious about making it matter who has control of the grid. Otherwise it will be a trolling contest. This......is actually a very good idea.
SilentAsTheGrave Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective 59	Posted - 2015.03.09 15:50:58 - [213] - Quote Amyclas Amatin wrote: SilentAsTheGrave wrote: Amyclas Amatin wrote: Will Entosis links do anything to ship velocity? If they don't, even if you don't allow frigates to fit them, we will troll in orthruses or 10mn AB tactical destroyers. It's like you keep ignoring the fact I can just skip over and stop you with my own Entosis link. Why do you keep doing this?? Hah. Made you babysit the structure by putting your own ship in the open. Objective complete. Rinse and repeat until you run out of people willing to do that for 4 hours a day. Hah. Made you risk a ship out in the open. Objective complete. Rinse and repeat until you run out of people willing to do that for 4 hours a day. Don't forget you guys have half the map you will need to protect as well. You guys keep conveniently forgetting about that.
Arla Sarain 337	Posted - 2015.03.09 15:53:13 - [214] - Quote Lorac Gemini wrote: Trollceptors with a 100km radius bubble sphere of influence definitely makes them hard to handle. Because they can't be EWARd? I don't get it. If the argument for EWARIng them doesn't work because the actual grid dominance reduces to whomever gets bored first, assuming you had a reliable way of killing ceptors, wouldn't the boredom just extend to bringing back more ships? At the end of the day, whoever is persistent wins regardless of the ship. Ceptors will get jammed, damped if they can't be killed. End of. If they could be killed, it'd just reduce to whomever got tired of bringing the trollceptor.
SilentAsTheGrave Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective 59	Posted - 2015.03.09 15:53:45 - [215] - Quote Daalamira wrote: CCP Fozzie wrote: Hello folks. ... Thanks -Fozzie You really should go into politics, you just posted a wall of text without saying a damn thing relevant to the concerns of the community. Actually, he did. Even outlined it for ease of reading. Just because you don't agree with it doesn't mean it was not relevant.
Wemyss Rolled Out Diplomatic Immunity. 2	Posted - 2015.03.09 15:54:59 - [216] - Quote How about only defenders can use the T2?
davet517 Caldari Provisions Caldari State 61	Posted - 2015.03.09 15:55:30 - [217] - Quote EvilweaselFinance wrote: [ this also is the same dumb response that ignores the interceptor can't be caught, merely its trolling made successful by forcing you to sit on a gate doing nothing but staring impotently at it, while it can then vary it up by moving on to the next system Ok, but how many different "troll" doctrines are you demand be nerfed? You know that someone can do the same thing to you with a "frigs and recons" black ops gang, right? Frigs for the links covered by falcons to shut down a few defenders. Things get hot, just cloak up and bounce.
SilentAsTheGrave Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective 59	Posted - 2015.03.09 15:56:54 - [218] - Quote Groperson wrote: Kinis Deren wrote: The Mittani wrote: Though it may come as a surprise to some, I'm a big fan of the new system, with some tweaks around the edges - tweak the links a little and I'm happy with them. Here are some options I'd be in favor of w/r/t Entosis Links . None of these ideas are mine - they come from Xttz, Progodlegend, or are otherwise ubiquitous across the community. Interdiction Nullifiers could interfere with the activation of an Entosis Link - T3s would need to refit a different subsystem once at a target via a moble depot, and the mods would not work at all with interceptors. Once activated, the Entosis Link could disable any fitted propulsion mod, like siege/triage currently. Progodlegend's idea - we could limit the link module to cruiser class hulls and above via cpu/pg. I'd be happy with any/all of the above three tweaks. Cheers! Nope. We'd end up with a "bubble border" around every coalition to stop anyone from threatening the current sov null paradigm. Allowing inties and T3's to fit and use the Entosis module prevents bubble spam being an effective strategy in nullifying the proposed sov mechanics. Play the game and defend your systems then you won't have any issues coping with lone interceptors. The thing is, if you allow interceptors to attack sov. What do you risk as the attacker? Even in the most well defended region of space: deklein, you can just zoom interceptor gangs through with no risk because they are uncatchable. That' bubble spam' that you encounter is called 'the residents defending their space' You are advocating that even if residents defend their space, they will never be able to catch the people who are attacking it. That is broken, you risk nothing for attack and yet force the defenders to form a response and if it is insufficiently quick, do 10x the amount of work than the attackers. If you want to play at the sov game then you should have to risk something, if you allow entosis links on interceptors, the attacker risks nothing. Whilst the defender has everything at risk. Maybe you guys should leave some of the PvPers behind to protect the nullbears instead of deploying them to the other side of the map as ~honorable 3rd party~.
SilentAsTheGrave Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective 59	Posted - 2015.03.09 15:58:58 - [219] - Quote I just want to point out, this new sov system is infinity better than anything we have had before and most certainly, better than what we have now. Sure there is some things to tweak here and there, but most certainly better.
Rroff Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork 948	Posted - 2015.03.09 15:59:35 - [220] - Quote Don't really have my head in these new mechanics - anyone care to elaborate how this doesn't just change the focus from who can put the most heavily armed boots on the ground to who can roll the most newbie alts and zerg/lemming attack/defend?

Knus'lar Wormbro Ocularis Inferno 106	Posted - 2015.03.09 15:59:38 - [221] - 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. Seems like everyone forgot this or didnt actually read. You dont need to kill any so-called troll ceptor, and even if it was an issue, just make long range kestrals or something and blap it off the field
PaDLa MD The Great Harmon Institute Of Technology 0	Posted - 2015.03.09 15:59:58 - [222] - Quote What makes sense to me is that the range at which the link is usable should be tied to the class of ship. ie, frigate -20-30 km... capital 100km Buff the ranges for t2 variants. This would solve your trollceptor problem, but not make firgates useless.
Azami Nevinyrall Red Federation RvB - RED Federation 2221	Posted - 2015.03.09 16:00:37 - [223] - Quote A good "balance" I'd suggest is to permit "X" number of ship classes to use the Link at one time. Let's use 5... So if Alliance "A" has 2 Battlecruisers, 3 Trollceptors and 1 Battleship with links active. Then Alliance A, B, C, D, etc... Can use 3 Battle cruisers, 2 Trollceptors, 4 Battleships, and whatever else.....say 4 Destroyers. Hello, world!
EvilweaselFinance BUTTECORP INC Goonswarm Federation 606	Posted - 2015.03.09 16:01:11 - [224] - Quote davet517 wrote: Ok, but how many different "troll" doctrines are you demand be nerfed? You know that someone can do the same thing to you with a "frigs and recons" black ops gang, right? Frigs for the links covered by falcons to shut down a few defenders. Things get hot, just cloak up and bounce. that requires placing actual assets at risk, so i don't have an issue with it: you can get away with skill and luck but it's not so stupidly easy the risk is essentially zero the trollceptor is never at risk unless you pass out on your keyboard
Sbrodor Oscura Simmetria Yulai Federation 41	Posted - 2015.03.09 16:04:29 - [225] - Quote i agree 100% that "victory" in eve is a personal way to see the fight: 1)isk war 2)killmails war 3)holding the field war. between these 3 choices i agree the "holding the field" is the better way to determine a dominant faction in a single place. ofc avoiding the forcing mechanics and trollfit is a good way. i think the best way to determine who hold the field is giving simple a smaller range to the modules. 50km for t2 enthosis will in a clear way show who hold the field. 250km is some time a offgrid distance, grid manipulation mechanics and other edge-mechanics; i think is better close range to 50km is good .
SilentAsTheGrave Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective 59	Posted - 2015.03.09 16:04:33 - [226] - Quote EvilweaselFinance wrote: SilentAsTheGrave wrote: Ann Markson wrote: While the Trolleceptor thing itself is a useless rage it adresses another issue. Currently the majority of Sov Null systems is worth **. CCP has the info and they are seeing boat loads of ISK being made in null. As in a LOT*! Sorry this ruins your argument. ccp are the drunk guy looking for his keys under the streetlight and not where he lost them isk itself is mostly generated in null. wealth does not correlate to isk generated: a miner makes ore, not isk, a mission runner makes LP, not isk, a manufacturer makes items, not isk those things then get CONVERTED to isk, but figuring out what that means income-wise is hard so CCP has just looked at raw isk generated and ignored all the other ways you make income. They have the hard data, you don't. I get your trying to spin this to make it sound like everyone in null is going broke, yet evidence is shown this is not the case. Not just hard data for CCP's eyes, but as a normal player I see coalitions full of super capitals and other 'bling bling' type stuff. You guys even refer to losing 250 billion ISK to a thief as 'chump change and doesn't affect the goon bottom line.'* So tell me, which is it. You are rich or you are poor? Because you can't flip flop around depending on the subject. If you are the later then maybe you should start to question why your leadership is hording all the money while you starve.
afkalt Republic Military School Minmatar Republic 883	Posted - 2015.03.09 16:04:55 - [227] - Quote EvilweaselFinance wrote: davet517 wrote: Ok, but how many different "troll" doctrines are you demand be nerfed? You know that someone can do the same thing to you with a "frigs and recons" black ops gang, right? Frigs for the links covered by falcons to shut down a few defenders. Things get hot, just cloak up and bounce. that requires placing actual assets at risk, so i don't have an issue with it: you can get away with skill and luck but it's not so stupidly easy the risk is essentially zero the trollceptor is never at risk unless you pass out on your keyboard Or a cerberus is on field. Or a linked rapier/huginn/lachesis/garmur. Or a sniper fit turret ship. Or a smartbombing camp is in the way. Or it comes in close to kill the ship with damps on it or that is running its own link. It's never at risk if you're remotely not serious about contesting the structure.
John McCreedy Eve Defence Force The Kadeshi 162	Posted - 2015.03.09 16:05:51 - [228] - Quote Rroff wrote: Don't really have my head in these new mechanics - anyone care to elaborate how this doesn't just change the focus from who can put the most heavily armed boots on the ground to who can roll the most newbie alts and zerg/lemming attack/defend? The blog stated that the Entosis module should have 'low fitting requirements' and that the T2 variant can operate at 250km. This has lead most of us to come to the conclusion that the obvious strategy is to use a single interceptor built explicitly for speed and targeting range. How do you stop a single Interceptor, that is Interdiction nullified so can warp away from any gate camp, that is faster than almost any other ship, that would logically be piloted by only the best solo PvPers, from reinforcing an entire Sov system? We basically go from 3000 man brawls in local, to a single ship in order to contest sov.
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 582	Posted - 2015.03.09 16:07:37 - [229] - Quote afkalt wrote: Or a cerberus is on field. Or a linked rapier/huginn/lachesis/garmur. Or a sniper fit turret ship. Or a smartbombing camp is in the way. Or it comes in close to kill the ship with damps on it or that is running its own link. It's never at risk if you're remotely not serious about contesting the structure. the interceptor just disengages if any of those things somehow managed to waddle onto field in defiance of an interceptor's superior warp speed what is it about the concept "the interceptor can travel at will and disengage at will" are you chuckleheads failing to grasp
Eli Apol Pro Synergy 327	Posted - 2015.03.09 16:08:37 - [230] - Quote Sbrodor wrote: 250km is some time a offgrid distance, grid manipulation mechanics and other edge-mechanics; i think is better close range to 50km is good . Another good counter to the trollceptors: Grid fu to make them leave grid whilst orbitting and lose their locks Nice one :) Promiscuous Female wrote: the interceptor just disengages if any of those things somehow managed to waddle onto field in defiance of an interceptor's superior warp speed what is it about the concept "the interceptor can travel at will and disengage at will" are you chuckleheads failing to grasp The fact they can't warp off until the module deactivates some 2-5 minutes later? And that this thread has already raised multiple minor tweaks like sig radius / speed nerfs that would make trollceptors even more vulnerable WITHOUT needing to completely scrap nullified ships from using the module (and make defending empty space easier as certain people have a vested interest in doing)

EvilweaselFinance BUTTECORP INC Goonswarm Federation 608	Posted - 2015.03.09 16:08:43 - [231] - Quote SilentAsTheGrave wrote: They have the hard data, you don't. I get your trying to spin this to make it sound like everyone in null is going broke, yet evidence is shown this is not the case. Not just hard data for CCP's eyes, but as a normal player I see coalitions full of super capitals and other 'bling bling' type stuff. You guys even refer to losing 250 billion ISK to a thief as 'chump change and doesn't affect the goon bottom line.' So tell me, which is it. You are rich or you are poor? Because you can't flip flop around depending on the subject. If you are the later then maybe you should start to question why your leadership is hording all the money while you starve. nothing in your post indicates the slightest comprehension of what my post means so it's basically incoherent ramblings to assist you in trying to figure out what my point is, the discussion is essentially the relative income in nullsec compared to the relative income in other regions of space, and what statistics one would look at to judge
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 582	Posted - 2015.03.09 16:09:07 - [232] - Quote Eli Apol wrote: Sbrodor wrote: 250km is some time a offgrid distance, grid manipulation mechanics and other edge-mechanics; i think is better close range to 50km is good . Another good counter to the trollceptors: Grid fu to make them leave grid whilst orbitting and lose their locks Nice one :) this is not how grid fu works
SilentAsTheGrave Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective 61	Posted - 2015.03.09 16:10:15 - [233] - Quote Murkar Omaristos wrote: Remove trollceptors as a possibility plz, kthx. And limit the number of entosis modules that can be activated against a target corp at one time so small gangs cant just all spread out to different systems and wreak total havoc. So this alliance that owns the sov can't spare enough guys to match that small gang in their prime time to defend the systems being contested? I don't get it. There seems to be a lot of cherry picking going around when creating these doomsday situations.
Veskrashen Justified Chaos Spaceship Bebop 756	Posted - 2015.03.09 16:10:19 - [234] - Quote 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? We Gallente have a saying: "CCP created the Gallente Militia to train the Fighters..."
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 582	Posted - 2015.03.09 16:11:23 - [235] - Quote 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
EvilweaselFinance BUTTECORP INC Goonswarm Federation 608	Posted - 2015.03.09 16:11:29 - [236] - Quote Veskrashen wrote: 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? yes it can, very easily, because it is fast enough that it trivally crosses a grid wall seriously do any of you people even know the barest minimum about how this game works
Strata Maslav V0LTA Triumvirate. 120	Posted - 2015.03.09 16:11:38 - [237] - Quote I think the balance should be made between range and mobility with the Entosis Link. It is important to have a long range option available to ensure that a ranged setup can contest the site otherwise we will get an over bias towards brawling setups. I feel there should be little to no penalty for the T1 25km range variant. if you are sat 25 km off the beacon you are committed towards to fight. The difficulty is the balance of the T2 module which allows for control of the point at the longest possible distance. The T2 module should require a trade off. Trading tank or signature would allow the ship to be sniped too easily and would push the meta into longer ranged setups so I feel we are only left with mobility. Regarding mobility I feel ship mass would be the best characteristic to change as it would allow a ship to still use it speed but ensure that it cannot kite in circles sitting 250km off the beacon.
SilentAsTheGrave Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective 61	Posted - 2015.03.09 16:11:42 - [238] - Quote Murkar Omaristos wrote: Also, you got nearly 200 pages of responses in 48 hours after posting this idea. Do you rly think "thanks but we're leaving it like this" is a satisfactory response to that? Fix the concerns that people have, don't just put a PR-bandaid on it. This is a breakout thread in regards to the Entosis Link only.
SilentAsTheGrave Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective 61	Posted - 2015.03.09 16:13:07 - [239] - Quote xttz wrote: Will an active Entosis Link prevent cloaking? Last time I checked you can't target anything while cloaked.
afkalt Republic Military School Minmatar Republic 887	Posted - 2015.03.09 16:14:33 - [240] - Quote 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.

Elenahina Agony Unleashed Agony Empire 191	Posted - 2015.03.09 16:15:07 - [241] - Quote Murkar Omaristos wrote: And limit the number of entosis modules that can be activated against a target corp at one time so small gangs cant just all spread out to different systems and wreak total havoc. Absolutely ******* no. This is exactly what small entites should be able to do - harrass their larger neighbors and conceal their true targets behind false flags. Agony Unleashed is Recruiting - Small Gang PvP in Null Sec
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 584	Posted - 2015.03.09 16:15:13 - [242] - Quote SilentAsTheGrave wrote: xttz wrote: Will an active Entosis Link prevent cloaking? Last time I checked you can't target anything while cloaked. that is not what "prevent cloaking" means
Arrendis GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 309	Posted - 2015.03.09 16:15:28 - [243] - Quote SilentAsTheGrave wrote: I see coalitions full of super capitals and other 'bling bling' type stuff. You guys even refer to losing 250 billion ISK to a thief as 'chump change and doesn't affect the goon bottom line.' So tell me, which is it. You are rich or you are poor? Because you can't flip flop around depending on the subject. If you are the later then maybe you should start to question why your leadership is hording all the money while you starve. You're confusing alliance income and personal income there. Coalitions can afford to field supercapitals in numbers because a)they're almost never killed when deployed like that, and b)the alliances involved can afford to replace them, where the individual pilot might not easily do so. They're strategic assets, mostly. Also, the 250b isk stolen was largely made in highsec - the Miniluv cache comes from selling off the loot from ganks. It's not that it 'doesn't affect the goon bottom line' because it's chump change - it doesn't impact the alliance finances because Miniluv is self-supporting. Organized highsec ganking is profitable, and the profits get rolled back into the Ministry's operations.
SilentAsTheGrave Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective 62	Posted - 2015.03.09 16:15:41 - [244] - Quote Murkar Omaristos wrote: Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Quote: As much as possible, the Entosis Link capture progress should reflect which group has effective military control of the grid. This will not happen if frigates are allowed to use it. Quote: The optimal strategy for fighting over a location with the Entosis Link should be to gain effective control of the grid. Then make it disable prop mods as well, so people can't ***** out and kite their way through a sov capture. If their intent to attack the sov in a given system is genuine and not just trolling, then they'll have no problem fighting for control of the grid, instead of kiting until the other guy dies of boredom. One or both of those things should be implemented, if you are actually serious about making it matter who has control of the grid. Otherwise it will be a trolling contest. This......is actually a very good idea. No, this is not. That idea is basically throwing the baby out with the bathwater. So because you are worried about a handful of super fast ships you kill all propulsion to fix it? That is terrible. You address the key ships and make adjustments. Not turn the grid into 'Only Brick Tanked Slow Boats Allowed' game play.
Eli Apol Pro Synergy 328	Posted - 2015.03.09 16:15:42 - [245] - Quote Promiscuous Female wrote: Eli Apol wrote: Sbrodor wrote: 250km is some time a offgrid distance, grid manipulation mechanics and other edge-mechanics; i think is better close range to 50km is good . Another good counter to the trollceptors: Grid fu to make them leave grid whilst orbitting and lose their locks Nice one :) 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. Grid Fu Guide wrote: How to Shrink Grids ItGÇÖs very easy to shrink a grid and is something that can be setup before a conflict and bookmarks can be made to quickly re-shrink the grid. General Steps: 1. Pilot starts at the Tower and chooses a direction to fly towards. 2. Start burning away from the Tower. 3. When you fall off grid. Stop the ship, drop a can/corpse/etc, and make a Bookmark. - Name the bookmark something meaningful. 4. Start flying back towards the Tower. 5. When you get back on grid with the Tower, stop and turn back around. 6. When you fall off grid again you should see your first can/corpse/etc. Stop the ship, drop a can/corpse/etc, and make a Bookmark. 7. Repeat steps 4 - 6 until you hit a hard wall. - Normally, this will occur when you are about 140km from the Tower.
EvilweaselFinance BUTTECORP INC Goonswarm Federation 612	Posted - 2015.03.09 16:16:11 - [246] - Quote afkalt wrote: 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. an npc alt posting obviously incorrect information ad nauseum trying to win a discussion by sheer attrition, what a surprise none of those things will ruin its day because it will trivially disengage
DaeHan Minhyok Multiplex Gaming The Bastion 50	Posted - 2015.03.09 16:17:26 - [247] - Quote 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.
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 584	Posted - 2015.03.09 16:17:28 - [248] - Quote 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
xttz GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 455	Posted - 2015.03.09 16:17:32 - [249] - Quote SilentAsTheGrave wrote: xttz wrote: Will an active Entosis Link prevent cloaking? Last time I checked you can't target anything while cloaked. It's a point about contesting without risk. Let's say a ship sits 200km+ off a structure with a link active. Can it simply hit the cloak button and be safe until the current cycle ends, then warp off?
Soldarius Kosher Nostra The 99 Percent 1172	Posted - 2015.03.09 16:17:55 - [250] - Quote Eli Apol wrote: Sbrodor wrote: 250km is some time a offgrid distance, grid manipulation mechanics and other edge-mechanics; i think is better close range to 50km is good . Another good counter to the trollceptors: Grid fu to make them leave grid whilst orbitting and lose their locks Last I checked intentionally shrinking a grid is considered an exploit and will get you banned. So don't do it. As for trollceptors, a one-off troll link is no big concern. There are plenty of ways to counter that from snipers, to damps, to defensive links. But like my first post in the original thread, I'm more worried about a large enitity roaming around with 50 of them and reinforcing everything with little to no risk. I still think that the easiest way to handle the problem is to treat the Entosis Link like a link and only be fittable on link-capable ships; ie CBCs, CS, and link T3s. http://youtu.be/YVkUvmDQ3HY

John McCreedy Eve Defence Force The Kadeshi 163	Posted - 2015.03.09 16:18:27 - [251] - Quote SilentAsTheGrave wrote: Murkar Omaristos wrote: Remove trollceptors as a possibility plz, kthx. And limit the number of entosis modules that can be activated against a target corp at one time so small gangs cant just all spread out to different systems and wreak total havoc. So this alliance that owns the sov can't spare enough guys to match that small gang in their prime time to defend the systems being contested? I don't get it. There seems to be a lot of cherry picking going around when creating these doomsday situations. 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?
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 584	Posted - 2015.03.09 16:18:59 - [252] - Quote Eli Apol wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: Eli Apol wrote: Sbrodor wrote: 250km is some time a offgrid distance, grid manipulation mechanics and other edge-mechanics; i think is better close range to 50km is good . Another good counter to the trollceptors: Grid fu to make them leave grid whilst orbitting and lose their locks Nice one :) 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
Darius Caliente The Pinecone Squad 101	Posted - 2015.03.09 16:21:29 - [253] - Quote It seems to me that the solution to ensure the Entosis link isn't abused is to merge the mechanics of two existing modules. 1) Cyno -- Staying stationary is probably overkill but providing an overview icon, visible across the entire system that anyone can warp to would be a good start. 2) Warp Disruption Field Generator -- Penalize the velocity bonus of MWDs and ABs. Tying those two mechanics together would be a good start.
DeadDuck The Legion of Spoon Curatores Veritatis Alliance 135	Posted - 2015.03.09 16:22:14 - [254] - Quote The danger is not in the single guy that comes along in a fast ship to mess with your sov. The abuse will be in a group of 5-10 fast ships protecting the "troll ceptor(s)" that can pretty much mess up the sov of a solid alliance without much effort or risk. That's it... Bring 2 troll ceptors, 1 of grid booster, 3-5 ortrus/cynabals/Ishtars + 1 or 2 keres + 1 Logistic and you have a winner, to turn sov a nightmare to keep to 99,99% of the alliances in game. This WILL happen unless there is a penalty to ship velocity of some kind even if It would make so much more sense to restrict the enthosis link to cap ships.
Gilbaron Free-Space-Ranger Nulli Secunda 1741	Posted - 2015.03.09 16:22:22 - [255] - Quote I wonder how you want to establish effective military control with members of your own your own alliance on multiple grids at once against things like slippery Petes and bombers that kill anything that activates an entosis link. All while the entosing ship can't receive remote reps. Build your empire ! Rent Space in Feythabolis and Omist Contact me for details :)
Dracvlad Taishi Combine Second-Dawn 720	Posted - 2015.03.09 16:22:25 - [256] - Quote 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! Ella's Snack bar
xttz GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 455	Posted - 2015.03.09 16:22:37 - [257] - Quote 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.
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 584	Posted - 2015.03.09 16:23:29 - [258] - Quote 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
SilentAsTheGrave Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective 62	Posted - 2015.03.09 16:24:21 - [259] - Quote xttz wrote: SilentAsTheGrave wrote: xttz wrote: Will an active Entosis Link prevent cloaking? Last time I checked you can't target anything while cloaked. It's a point about contesting without risk. Let's say a ship sits 200km+ off a structure with a link active. Can it simply hit the cloak button and be safe until the current cycle ends, then warp off? Apologies. I miss read what you said. I understand what you are saying now. I'm not opposed to the idea that it should not be possible to fit a cloak and Entosis Link at the same time. They could be cloaked with the Entosis Link and Depot in their cargo and just refit when the system is empty, but I don't see that as a deal breaker. After all, if the defending sov owner does not have a presence in the system in their prime time, then they don't need it.
afkalt Republic Military School Minmatar Republic 888	Posted - 2015.03.09 16:24:29 - [260] - 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 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)

Ab'del Abu Atlantis Ascendant 225	Posted - 2015.03.09 16:24:34 - [261] - Quote You say you don't want to artificially skew the meta by allowing the entosis link on command ships and battleships only, but I still wouldn't want to see this module on frigate and destroyer class ships. At least not without significant drawback. I would approach this by using rather high fitting requirements, say around 150 for each cpu and powergrid. This would ensure that entosis link fitted frigates and dessis would have seriously gimped fits and massive t1 cruiser fleets wouldn't be able to fit those things on mass without a certain penalty. You should also consider "entosis link travel time". It shouldn't be a massive logistical challenge to get the link to the intended destination. But it should def. take longer than a ceptor would need.
EvilweaselFinance BUTTECORP INC Goonswarm Federation 618	Posted - 2015.03.09 16:25:23 - [262] - Quote 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
Eli Apol Pro Synergy 329	Posted - 2015.03.09 16:25:30 - [263] - Quote 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.
Groperson GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 60	Posted - 2015.03.09 16:27:08 - [264] - Quote SilentAsTheGrave wrote: Groperson wrote: Kinis Deren wrote: The Mittani wrote: Though it may come as a surprise to some, I'm a big fan of the new system, with some tweaks around the edges - tweak the links a little and I'm happy with them. Here are some options I'd be in favor of w/r/t Entosis Links . None of these ideas are mine - they come from Xttz, Progodlegend, or are otherwise ubiquitous across the community. Interdiction Nullifiers could interfere with the activation of an Entosis Link - T3s would need to refit a different subsystem once at a target via a moble depot, and the mods would not work at all with interceptors. Once activated, the Entosis Link could disable any fitted propulsion mod, like siege/triage currently. Progodlegend's idea - we could limit the link module to cruiser class hulls and above via cpu/pg. I'd be happy with any/all of the above three tweaks. Cheers! Nope. We'd end up with a "bubble border" around every coalition to stop anyone from threatening the current sov null paradigm. Allowing inties and T3's to fit and use the Entosis module prevents bubble spam being an effective strategy in nullifying the proposed sov mechanics. Play the game and defend your systems then you won't have any issues coping with lone interceptors. The thing is, if you allow interceptors to attack sov. What do you risk as the attacker? Even in the most well defended region of space: deklein, you can just zoom interceptor gangs through with no risk because they are uncatchable. That' bubble spam' that you encounter is called 'the residents defending their space' You are advocating that even if residents defend their space, they will never be able to catch the people who are attacking it. That is broken, you risk nothing for attack and yet force the defenders to form a response and if it is insufficiently quick, do 10x the amount of work than the attackers. If you want to play at the sov game then you should have to risk something, if you allow entosis links on interceptors, the attacker risks nothing. Whilst the defender has everything at risk. Maybe you guys should leave some of the PvPers behind to protect the nullbears instead of deploying them to the other side of the map as ~honorable 3rd party~. We do, we have pvp'ers at home, running bubbled gatecamps with instalockers and even they are unable to catch the interceptor gangs that come through. How would you suggest we counter the interceptor gangs?
John McCreedy Eve Defence Force The Kadeshi 165	Posted - 2015.03.09 16:27:09 - [265] - Quote 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?
afkalt Republic Military School Minmatar Republic 890	Posted - 2015.03.09 16:28:10 - [266] - Quote DeadDuck wrote: The danger is not in the single guy that comes along in a fast ship to mess with your sov. The abuse will be in a group of 5-10 fast ships protecting the "troll ceptor(s)" that can pretty much mess up the sov of a solid alliance without much effort or risk. That's it... Bring 2 troll ceptors, 1 of grid booster, 3-5 ortrus/cynabals/Ishtars + 1 or 2 keres + 1 Logistic and you have a winner, to turn sov a nightmare to keep to 99,99% of the alliances in game. This WILL happen unless there is a penalty to ship velocity of some kind even if It would make so much more sense to restrict the enthosis link to cap ships. So roaming gangs get a fight? The HORROR! The abject HORROR! If you live in your space and you cant handle this crap in your own, designated prime time....you deserve to lose it. Good lord, you'd think these things are going to come crawling out from under your beds whilst you sleep.
Super Noodle Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire 0	Posted - 2015.03.09 16:28:40 - [267] - Quote Fozzie, can you please scrap this entire plan you've come up with to rework sov and start over from scratch. It's garbage.
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 588	Posted - 2015.03.09 16:29:01 - [268] - Quote 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
EvilweaselFinance BUTTECORP INC Goonswarm Federation 618	Posted - 2015.03.09 16:29:08 - [269] - Quote Groperson wrote: [We do, we have pvp'ers at home, running bubbled gatecamps with instalockers and even they are unable to catch the interceptor gangs that come through. How would you suggest we counter the interceptor gangs? obviously by using neuting bumping nafalgars or whatever the latest theoretical approach is that anyone who has spent 5m in null knows won't work and why i think smartbombs are the lastest hotness in theorycrafting because npc alts can't activate smartbombs where they live so they don't know you can't smartbomb if you'd hit a gate
Killian Cormac Cormac Distribution 0	Posted - 2015.03.09 16:29:09 - [270] - Quote John McCreedy wrote: you have a choice. Ignore me and hope I'm just there as an annoyance. Or risk sov in your Capital system. False dichotomies work on five-year-olds, they should work fine here too.

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.

Murkar Omaristos The Alabaster Albatross Eternal Pretorian Alliance 101	Posted - 2015.03.09 16:55:13 - [301] - Quote Super Noodle wrote: Fozzie, can you please scrap this entire plan you've come up with to rework sov and start over from scratch. It's garbage. This.
TrouserDeagle Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel 1033	Posted - 2015.03.09 16:56:07 - [302] - Quote CCP Fozzie wrote: This is the reason for the "no remote reps" condition on active Links. how about instead, you fix logistics so it doesn't cause this type of stuff. I'd suggest making all remote assist mods go 'ancillary'.
Sven Viko VIkolander Friends and Feminists 332	Posted - 2015.03.09 16:56:33 - [303] - Quote After reading the blogs / posts of people who are much more knowledgeable than I am, this is my considered judgment about the Entosis Link mechanic: 1) The goals of the mechanic are heading in the right direction for sov control and harassment. That is pretty uncontroversial. 2) However, the worst part about the Entosis Link as a mechanic is that it is completely boring. I can't think of more lackluster mechanic for fighting over a grid than "orbit at 25-250km, do nothing." It is even more empty as a game play mechanic than the faction war mechanic of sitting in a plex until the timer runs out. Not the least of which is because it will be boring to have to be the entosis link pilot (/alt pilot more likely), even worse than being the cyno pilot / alt. At the very least, why can't the mechanic for taking control of a grid in sov simply be that used in faction war, of running down a timer while in range of a beacon or structure? In that case, there would not be any need to balance a module--and one can be confident that players will immediately find the most optimal, risk averse way of using the Entosis Link, and use it in no other way. 3) If the entosis link as a module and a mechanic has to stay, I think it should have the following design features: A. It should have a relatively small size (e.g., comparable to most other modules, such as 5m3), so that it can be fit in most cargo bays and fit using a mobile depot as/when needed. B) The original dev blog states that the drawbacks to using the link are: " the equipped ship cannot warp, dock, jump or receive remote assistance until the cycle completes." However, I would suggest no other drawbacks: Allow ships with an entosis link fit and active to do all other "normal" PVP activities, such as MWD, web/scram/use other high slot modules like guns and neuts. However, what about using an MJD with an entosis link active? I think it should still be allowed and simply cancel the cycle, presumably just like flying out of range would cancel the cycle. C) I want to plug this hear since it is a fantastic suggestion being made by a lot of people in null: There should be local chat delay in null, and a sov upgrade should be no local chat delay, and this upgrade should be able to be disabled by the entosis link....this needs to happen if only to combat how risk averse people are in null when everyone at this point in EVE knows which fights they can win, and which they can't (in which case, they dock). Intel needs to be harder to acquire, and it needs to be something that can be disrupted.
EvilweaselFinance BUTTECORP INC Goonswarm Federation 624	Posted - 2015.03.09 16:56:56 - [304] - Quote Killian Cormac wrote: 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. irrelevants constantly seem to think that they will get to own space the larger alliances don't want they won't they will, instead, be buchered mercilessly if they try and the space will be left fallow because everyone loves stomping on ten highseccers who think they have what it takes
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 592	Posted - 2015.03.09 16:57:19 - [305] - Quote Killian Cormac wrote: 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. this is a pretty romantic idea but it breaks down in practice due to the geography of eve in order to live in places like the drone regions, period basis, and most of the south, you either need to own or be friendly with the folks in regions closer to empire or your space is completely worthless fortunately deklein does not fall prey to this so personally i'm okay with the idea, for what it's worth
Princess Cherista State War Academy Caldari State 28	Posted - 2015.03.09 16:58:18 - [306] - Quote Guys I got it. Dont let the sov laser be fitted to fast, agile, nullified, uncatchable ships like an interceptor = problem solved. Highsec and lowsec guys who say inty gangs are easily countered and have no combat viability when fitted for speed get out.
xttz GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 458	Posted - 2015.03.09 16:59:03 - [307] - Quote xttz wrote: 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 Building on this somewhat, what if each link size gave a modifier to capture time? The bigger the ship used, the more risk involved and therefore the faster the capture time. This is counter-balanced by the already-mentioned higher cycle time for capital ships. Small T1: 2.0 modifier Small T2: 1.75 modifier Medium T1: 1.5 modifier Medium T2: 1.25 modifier Large T1: 1.0 modifier Large T2: 0.9 modifier XL T1: 0.9 modifier XL T2: 0.8 modifier If someone wants to contest sov in a battleship they'll spend half the time as someone using a frigate.
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 592	Posted - 2015.03.09 17:01:00 - [308] - Quote Princess Cherista wrote: Highsec and lowsec guys who say inty gangs are easily countered and have no combat viability when fitted for speed get out they are easily countered if they are actually scrapping for a fight trollceptors don't do this, they just hit what they can and run away if anything at all comes on grid
Eugene Kerner TunDraGon Cynosural Field Theory. 1538	Posted - 2015.03.09 17:01:10 - [309] - Quote I dont care for small ships. I dont care for Sov. Whats with the announced capital changes...where is the thread for that? Left and right people of my alliance are unsubbing and selling their ships because of your ragged information policy (soundcloud interview). TunDraGon is recruiting! "Also, your boobs [:o] " -á CCP Eterne, 2012 "When in doubt...make a di++k joke."-áRobin Williams - RIP
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 592	Posted - 2015.03.09 17:04:08 - [310] - Quote Eugene Kerner wrote: I dont care for small ships. I dont care for Sov. Whats with the announced capital changes...where is the thread for that? Left and right people of my alliance are unsubbing and selling their ships because of your ragged information policy (soundcloud interview). yeah i gotta agree that using a third party blog site audio interview as the primary conduit for actual details regarding the new sov initiative is pretty awful it is this hilarious situation where anyone who is interested in actually participating in the game post-summer-expansions has to scrounge all available news sites, blogs, etc to actually get the information needed while official forums/devblog communique somehow manage to spend hundreds of words saying absolutely nothing (such as post #1 in this thread)

stoicfaux 5491	Posted - 2015.03.09 17:06:51 - [311] - Quote The trollceptor is sounding like solo back-hacking in Planetside (the original one.) Someone flies to an enemy base way in the rear, drains the base's power so it goes neutral and then spends 15 minutes hacking it to their side. It wasn't a big deal in Planetside since there were a million players online at anytime, the map made it pretty clear it was happening (you could see the base's power level,) and outfits (aka corps) were organized enough to go deal with the problems in the rear. A single person could back-hack in Planetside, but they had to bring an ANT (fuel truck,) had to bring their own logistics (either a portal supply truck, or hack enemy terminals ) in order to have the ammo/equipment, and had to destroy various items to speed up the energy drain. The biggest contrast I see between solo back-hacking in planetside and the trollceptor is the amount of work involved. The trollceptor just orbits at 250km, waits X minutes, and then is done. Whereas the planetside solo back-hacker was busier than a one-legged man in a butt kicking contest. They had to have various skills, had to travel quite a ways, had to be able to drive a fuel truck, were vulnerable to static base defenses (turrets, mines,) needed a good bit of time to drain the base, and finally needed 15 minutes to hack the base when it went neutral from running out power. Hacking rendering you immobile and defenseless, btw. Meanwhile, the enemy had the ability to hot-drop people on back hackers via a free and fast orbital drop before the power drained and the base went neutral. Back hacking wasn't very effective unless you had an organized force willing to drain the base quickly and then to defend it from the initial wave of casual defenders up to organized outfits dropping/flying in. Meaning, solo back-hacking wasn't practical, you needed a real force to pull it off. Pon Farr Memorial: once every 7 years, all the carebears in high-sec must PvP or they will be temp-banned.
Ukiah Oregan Lithomancers 17	Posted - 2015.03.09 17:07:51 - [312] - Quote Entross Link - just another bad idea this is a game with ships w/weapons that blows sht up - PVP is about blowing sht up there really is no need to discuss game mechanics about this concept - it's just a bad idea much like timers, this is poor game play you want to make null sec lawless and dynamic - remove SOV mechanics altogether - it's pretty clear CCP doesn't know how to keep it balanced or develop new game play dynamics at the heart of all warfare mechanics should be PVP eliminate stations in null sec eliminate SOV mechanics actually develop the POS into a workable, game play item corps drop and defend your POS where u want it you want a specific MOON or space - defend it or take it
Amyclas Amatin SUNDERING Goonswarm Federation 640	Posted - 2015.03.09 17:09:46 - [313] - Quote Killian Cormac wrote: 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. I don't think you get the point. A smaller organization would thus be unable to control more than a single constellation. And even then, with mandatory 4 hour daily CTAs, and without reserve manpower and reserve timezones to rotate into when people burnout. 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?"
Leeloo Fee Science and Trade Institute Caldari State 0	Posted - 2015.03.09 17:10:49 - [314] - Quote Hi CCP. Here are my 2 cents on this game and the upcoming changes extended with a few other things I dont like about EVE... . remove 'Truesec' A lot of space is just empty because the space is worthless. Rats are bad, no Officer spawns, low on Anoms. Remove this and people will more likely go out to fill this void. Therefore 0.0 will be attractive more. People will split out, making new corps/alliances and grinding SOV. This is how you break up the power blocks! If every 0.0 has the same sec-status all players will have their chance to pick a constellation they can live from and operate from there. Ask yourself: Why is 0.0 different from 0.0? . re-evalute the entosis stuff This makes no sense at all. I will not log on every day and wait for any neut to come by and try to capture SOV and fight him off... This will be a fulltime job. EVE takes too much off my free time either. So when I log on only to scare off those entosis frigs ceptors, life in 0.0 will become senseless. All we want is something between security (once you own and pay for sov), secure income, fun and fleets. . remove jump fatigue As I said EVE takes too much of my free time. We play this game for fun and not getting paid as you do, CCP eployees. We are paying subscriptions and your salary for a 'timer', sitting in space and cannot jump. If it goes like your believes we should quit or jobs and play EVE 20 hours a day, huh? Come on... . time dilation Do something! I don't care if you simply throw more hardware on it or re-evaluate the whole thing. Limit local count, do multiprocessing, load-balancing etc... Think about to remove a lot of mathematics from the game. If you cannot calculate the load in real time, your architecture/game design is wrong. Ask yourself: Do we really need thiiiiiiiiiiis complexity in the game? A module with 15 variants, implants, skills, bonus, blah blah with counter-less attributes all interacting with each other... You really thought you can calculate this in real time? For 2000 people on a grid? "Do you think this is air you are breathing?" If I want a real spaceship simulation I'd go for Kerbal Space Program! Ti-Di hits you with 50 T3 on a grid... In 2015... Nice "#MMORPG" you built... . Interceptor Bubble Immunity This is the worst change I have ever seen. Ceptors have their benefit. This change was overpowered. Only T3 with a subsystem can do this. Let's keep it that way... . Dreads What structure (ok maybe a POS once a year) should I hit with it? Combined entosis with jump fatigue makes capitals even more worthless... . Cloakly campers Another thing a lot of people are asking for and you simply ignore. For the love of god and our nature please do something that people cannot lock down your hard-earned and payed SOV with a single alt and cloak. Invent something like a Cloak-Jammer (like Cyno jammer) or make the cloak to use fuel. The current mechanic badly hurts in-game environment and real-life. People wasting electricity and produce carbon dioxide just to lock you down. They log in, cloak and let the computer run all day long while AFK... Make green IT CCP! Thats all I got for now... Cya
TheSmokingHertog TALIBAN EXPRESS 298	Posted - 2015.03.09 17:11:00 - [315] - Quote Aralyn Cormallen wrote: CCP Fozzie wrote: We can use everything from module price... Please, please, learn from experience. Price is not a sensible balance mechanic in any way. Remember, players will build just a few Titans after CCP introduces them... oh wait.
Roman Lynch Association of Commonwealth Enterprises Nulli Secunda 31	Posted - 2015.03.09 17:12:11 - [316] - Quote Quote: Calm down Francis. you just made the list....
MASSADEATH MASS A DEATH Mordus Angels 63	Posted - 2015.03.09 17:13:30 - [317] - Quote Does not seem too hard to counter this..just put your own entosis module on the structure...bam problem solved... or spread a fleet of sniping corms around the structure.... insta pop ceptors.... All I see is goon tears and they are filling up my cup We will be enjoying this new form of SOV ..and any alliances that cannot hold their sov...will naturally contract back to a point where they have the manpower to hold it. The whole point is to end the sprawling wasteland of empty SOV space.... and this should do it. If a 30,000 man alliance cant have a few people with entosis ships on the standby to stop SOV attacks on thier structures then they dont deserve that space.
Eli Apol Pro Synergy 329	Posted - 2015.03.09 17:15:21 - [318] - Quote Promiscuous Female wrote: yeah i gotta agree that using a third party blog site audio interview as the primary conduit for actual details regarding the new sov initiative is pretty awful I hate those devs that go live on air and actively discuss changes with notable members of the playerbase too.
Killian Cormac Cormac Distribution 1	Posted - 2015.03.09 17:15:41 - [319] - Quote Promiscuous Female wrote: this is a pretty romantic idea but it breaks down in practice due to the geography of eve If we can't dream in a fantasy game, where can we dream? Anyway this whole trollceptor thing is a red herring anyway, and I think most folks know it. The real interesting part is the sov capture mechanics, and we'll never see it if infrastructure elements are too easy to defend. It would be great to see an Eve where anyone is potentially at some risk of having fun.
MukkBarovian Blackwater USA Inc. Pandemic Legion 33	Posted - 2015.03.09 17:17:20 - [320] - Quote IF I SHOW UP WITH 50 STINKY PETES AND SPEND 10 SECONDS AT A TIME SHOOTING ENTOSIS SHIPS DO I CONTROL THE GRID? ITS NOT LIKE IT WILL BE HARD TO SNIPE THINGS THAT CAN'T BE REPPED. OH GOD PLEASE GET TIRED OF ME SNIPING YOUR BATTLESHIPS AND PUT ENTOSIS ON A TRIAGE CARRIER. I CAN ONLY GET SO ERECT.

Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 595	Posted - 2015.03.09 17:17:33 - [321] - Quote Killian Cormac wrote: If we can't dream in a fantasy game, where can we dream? eve is a sci-fi game not fantasy checkmate b*tch
Ranger 1 Ranger Corp Vae. Victis. 6166	Posted - 2015.03.09 17:19:07 - [322] - Quote Roman Lynch wrote: Quote: Calm down Francis. you just made the list.... Excellent! Will there be prizes? Oh, WILL THERE BE CAKE? I hope so, I love cake. View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents.
Alexis Nightwish 121	Posted - 2015.03.09 17:19:24 - [323] - Quote 1) Entosis links, while they are active, should warp scram the ship they are fitted to, and disable jump drives. Set the scram strength to something really high like 1000 to prevent any chance of stabbing out of it. Basically like a HIC's infini-point, but it's an infini-scram. I foresee a meta where every alliance has to keep an alt in a Moa w/ a T1 E-link (or interceptor w/ T2) at every one of its stations/TCUs/iHubs to prevent introllceptors from lawl capping by keeping its link up during the whole of PT. Some will say "well if you can't defend your space maybe you shouldn't have it." It's one thing to have to use your space, it's another to be chained to it. What if we gasp want to roam? Others will say "If you can't kill an interceptor blah blah blah..." well yes you can, but it's a PITA and no one wants to be on introllceptor guard duty. The point of the new SOV system was to encourage fun, right? If E-links self scam, MWD (and MJD) cannot be used and you won't see Svipul's and interceptors orbiting at 150km because an AB won't provide enough speed to prevent them from being sniped, or caught by a defending interceptor. 2) Entosis links should NOT give a capture speed penalty when fitted to capital ships, but they SHOULD give a cycle time multiplier so if they are used to capture, they must commit (see above how jump drives would be disabled). Using a cycle time multiplier of 5x as an example, if a capital with a T2 E-link starts a capture, the capture process won't actually start for 10 minutes, and each time the E-link cycles that traps the capital on grid for 10 minutes. CCP continues to gut capitals. I would like to see capitals in use in SOV warfare. By letting them capture at the normal rate, but locking them on grid if they do so (by disabling the jump drive), there's a risk/reward scenario that might encourage their use. Don't forget that a defender in an Ibis can halt the capture progress of an Aeon. CCP only approaches a problem in one of two ways: nudge or cludge EVE Online's "I win!" Button
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 595	Posted - 2015.03.09 17:19:39 - [324] - Quote Eli Apol wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: yeah i gotta agree that using a third party blog site audio interview as the primary conduit for actual details regarding the new sov initiative is pretty awful I hate those devs that go live on air and actively discuss changes with notable members of the playerbase too. yeah actually i do find it pretty tiring to have to slog through two hours of crap in order to unearth the nuggets of information i need to actually be able to play the game because there is some fear or impotence in the arena of even echoing the information on the official communications mechanisms
Amyclas Amatin SUNDERING Goonswarm Federation 640	Posted - 2015.03.09 17:20:08 - [325] - Quote MASSADEATH wrote: Does not seem too hard to counter this..just put your own entosis module on the structure...bam problem solved... or spread a fleet of sniping corms around the structure.... insta pop ceptors.... All I see is goon tears and they are filling up my cup We will be enjoying this new form of SOV ..and any alliances that cannot hold their sov...will naturally contract back to a point where they have the manpower to hold it. The whole point is to end the sprawling wasteland of empty SOV space.... and this should do it. If a 30,000 man alliance cant have a few people with entosis ships on the standby to stop SOV attacks on thier structures then they dont deserve that space. What will happen to any alliance that can't win on the field is that they will lose all their space. The system is very brittle in terms of points of failure. You can't afford to lose on the defensive. You can try reffing all of pure blind, we might even withdraw from many areas that we don't live in. But we won't allow you to use it. 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?"
Corey Lean GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 71	Posted - 2015.03.09 17:20:36 - [326] - Quote MASSADEATH wrote: The whole point is to end the sprawling wasteland of empty SOV space.... and this should do it. If a 30,000 man alliance cant have a few people with entosis ships on the standby to stop SOV attacks on thier structures then they dont deserve that space No the point is about fights. Mr. Fozzie the the design goals and end-state of all these changes is to generate fights by controlling the grid through force of arms, not slippery petes or interceptors. So that should exclude the usual suspects from this conversation about sovereignty.
Eli Apol Pro Synergy 329	Posted - 2015.03.09 17:21:47 - [327] - Quote Promiscuous Female wrote: yeah actually i do find it pretty tiring to have to slog through two hours of crap in order to unearth the nuggets of information i need to actually be able to play the game because there is some fear or impotence in the arena of even echoing the information on the official communications mechanisms Nothing that interesting was really said except 'Trollceptors can easily get nerf-batted if they get out of hand' There ya go, saved you 2 hours and about 150 pages of Goon forum posts.
Killian Cormac Cormac Distribution 1	Posted - 2015.03.09 17:23:47 - [328] - Quote Amyclas Amatin wrote: A smaller organization would thus be unable to control more than a single constellation. And even then, with mandatory 4 hour daily CTAs, and without reserve manpower and reserve timezones to rotate into when people burnout. Sounds like more churn and more activity to me! I guarantee that while the few big players in the current sov map are clutching at pearls, there are hundreds of smaller organizations who have started talking about what holding a constellation might mean for their game. Most of them will fail. What does it matter? The point is in having fun in the attempt. A constantly-changing sov landscape, where assets are lost and there is a high rate of burnout, is vastly preferable to the stagnant blue donut that we made fun of the Chinese for on Serenity.
Andrea Keuvo Science and Trade Institute Caldari State 310	Posted - 2015.03.09 17:25:02 - [329] - Quote Arkon Olacar wrote: Maximus Andendare wrote: Arkon Olacar wrote: 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! I think you're missing the point. (Not just you, but you stated your (major Sov holder's) point eloquently enough.) If it's a bother to defend your sovereignty, then 1) maybe you should question the amount you possess and 2) if you're not willing to put forth the effort to defend it, then perhaps it should be lost. I'm not speaking specifically to the trollceptor "ruckus" per se; it's more addressing the complaints that defending sovereignty will be too difficult. Sovereignty shouldn't so easy to defend that you can do it with a corp full of dis-interested recruits. If you want to keep sov, then it should be something that you and your corp want to defend. As it is, CCP is giving Sov holders the ability to lock out people from reinforcing their structures until a time set by the owner. If the owner can't find it in them to defend their home in a nice four hour block of their choosing, then it sounds more like the sov holder should reassess their priorities. Bolded the important part. You've hit the nail on the head here. These mechanics cause too much grief for the defender to be worth the benefits of holding sov. The end result will be people moving out of sov null, with sov holders largely staging and living out of nearby NPC nullsec or lowsec, holding regions as a form of content generation rather than actually living there. These mechanics as currently proposed would kill off nullsec, not revitalise it. This is 100% the problem and Fozzie refuses to acknowledge it because he can look at the numbers and see that "sh*t tons of isk are made in nullsec anoms" or whatever he said. The numbers I would like to see is how much ISK is being made from anoms grouped by truesec level because I have a feeling that a large percentage of the isk is being generated in the small number of systems with -.6 truesec or better. Why is this an issue? Because under occupancy based fozziesov somewhere between 2/3 and 3/4 of nullsec is no longer worth the effort to live in. The only way sov null systems can provide hisec levels of income for their residents is through the Ihub upgrades that cause anomalies to automatically respawn each time they are completed. The type and number of each anomoly that can spawn is influenced by the military level of the system and the level of sov upgrade but is also hard capped by the system's truesec - a fully upgraded mil 5 -.4 system is never going to have a sanctum automatically spawned. An 'average' sov null system with -.4 truesec at mil 5 and fully upgraded has a bunch of anomalies on scan. However, the vast majority give less than hisec missioning level of income so people only run a limited set of sites - forsaken hub, forsaken rally point, haven, and sanctum. The sample -.4 fully upgraded and at mil 5 gets 2x forsaken hub, 2x forsaken rallypoint, and 1x haven. This allows the system to support 2-3 players running sites at the same time making around or slightly above hisec level income. If you don't have the level 5 upgrade you lose one forsaken hub and the haven, meaning now this system can provide hisec level income for only one pilot. In systems below -.4 truesec it is even worse. The level 5 upgrade for anomalies is too large to fit in a jump freighter and can only be brought in using a regular freighter via a hisec wormhole. A freighter sized wormhole to hisec doesn't come along every day so getting this upgrade installed is not a trivial matter. In the current sov system this upgrade is protected by the massive investment of grinding the hp of defensive SBUs, dropping/defending your own SBUs, and then grinding the 75M+ HP of the Ihub over 2 reinforcement timers. Under fozziesov I can come reinforce your Ihub, and then come back and win the 2nd timer and your Ihub and all its upgrades go boom, effectively making the system 100% useless to you until you can again find a wormhole from hisec to bring in the level 5 upgrade and start the process over again. The point here is, why in the hell would anyone want to do this? Right now these systems are typically rented out and are protected by the sheer HP grind and the knowledge that they will be defended by the landlord. Under fozziesov, without committing a supercapital fleet an attacker could come and reinforce 10 ihubs. This creates 10 timers which all cannot possibly be defended. So while this probably kills rental empires as we know them it also makes nullsec systems below -.5 or -.6 truesec into space ghettos that are not worth the effort to live in. Let's say your smallish corp takes an unused -.3 and goes thru the effort to upgrade it. It will only be a matter of time before a larger pvp alliance comes along to kick down your castle. So why would you do this when you can stay in hisec and make as much/more isk with incursions/missions? An occupancy based sov system where the best systems can support at most a half a dozen occupants and the worst aren't worth occupying at all is doomed to end in failure. Anomoly quality needs to be decoupled from truesec so that over time even the lower quality systems are worth living in.
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 595	Posted - 2015.03.09 17:26:01 - [330] - Quote Eli Apol wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: yeah actually i do find it pretty tiring to have to slog through two hours of crap in order to unearth the nuggets of information i need to actually be able to play the game because there is some fear or impotence in the arena of even echoing the information on the official communications mechanisms Nothing that interesting was really said except 'Trollceptors can easily get nerf-batted if they get out of hand' There ya go, saved you 2 hours and about 150 pages of Goon forum posts. actually there was a lot more on it relevant details include the cementing of afk cloaking as a game mechanic into the future, designs on removing immediate mode local in nullsec, and the castration of supercapital ships into fleet boosters (which can't happen until the destiny rewrite is finished anyways so lol if you think the fleet boosting aspect will come before the gelding does) but yeah i could see where cherrypicking the only thing relevant to your argument would help against someone not paying attention

Elenahina Agony Unleashed Agony Empire 191	Posted - 2015.03.09 17:26:09 - [331] - Quote DeadDuck wrote: restrict the enthosis link to cap ships. Say hello to the new meta - same as the old meta, but now worse, because you HAVE to have caps and supers to take sov. Thanks no. Agony Unleashed is Recruiting - Small Gang PvP in Null Sec
Gevlon Goblin Science and Trade Institute Caldari State 358	Posted - 2015.03.09 17:26:55 - [332] - Quote This argument over interceptors completely misses the problem with the proposed Entosis mechanic: The "trollceptor" isn't impossible to catch, it's unworthy to catch. People PvP for 4 reasons: Fat killmails. Entosis ships will be cheaper than a Retriever. Tears of the enemy. Entosis ships are sent out to die, no one will cry over them. "Kudos" for being good. An Entosis ship is a lone (very fast) sitting ducks orbiting a structure with a warning sign over it. It'll likely be AFK. To win. You'll never win. You can save/take the timer today, but as the enemy suffered no losses, he'll be back. Or someone else, like a drunken highsec miner in a 1 day old alt and takes your Sov if you let down your guard just once. So a player has zero reason to hunt them. The alliance has, so people will be red pen CTA-d/paplinked into Entosis fleets and will hate it. Living in Sov will be a forever grind of mandatory Entosis-frig hunting. While there were crying over the boredom of structure grind, you could at least hope for an escalation. No one will escalate a tackled frigate. In structure grind, you were at least in a fleet, half-AFK, chatting. In Entosis duty, you'll be all alone, orbiting a structure. If it will be introduced, everyone who considers EVE a game will leave nullsec. The obsessive-compulsive will orbit the structures with 32 accounts (likely with bots). My blog: greedygoblin.blogspot.com
Ranger 1 Ranger Corp Vae. Victis. 6166	Posted - 2015.03.09 17:28:01 - [333] - Quote Promiscuous Female wrote: Killian Cormac wrote: 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. this is a pretty romantic idea but it breaks down in practice due to the geography of eve in order to live in places like the drone regions, period basis, and most of the south, you either need to own or be friendly with the folks in regions closer to empire or your space is completely worthless fortunately deklein does not fall prey to this so personally i'm okay with the idea, for what it's worth Interesting that people jump completely past the very true statement made above and immediately assume the point is that the person speaking is interested in "taking someone's space". If troll 'ceptors converge on your space, you simply need to have enough players or preferably alts to cover all of the necessary structures with 1 Entosis link each. Put them in a tanked cruiser or whatever and ignore it unless it's attacked directly. If your alliance doesn't have enough alts / players willing to cover all of your capturable structures, then you are attempting to hold more territory than you can control and deserve to loose it to anyone willing to take it by this method. If you DO have plenty of alts / players to put one ship in each important point... those trollceptor attacks are pointless and their frequency will (overall) drop off after awhile. Of course, there will be resurgences... but that's the nature of the beast. Point being, your entire organization doesn't need to be trying to kill interceptors constantly, just devote the necessary number of ships to keep an Entosis point on your important stuff. If you can't do that, scale back a bit until you can. View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents.
MASSADEATH MASS A DEATH Mordus Angels 63	Posted - 2015.03.09 17:28:01 - [334] - Quote Amyclas Amatin wrote: MASSADEATH wrote: Does not seem too hard to counter this..just put your own entosis module on the structure...bam problem solved... or spread a fleet of sniping corms around the structure.... insta pop ceptors.... All I see is goon tears and they are filling up my cup We will be enjoying this new form of SOV ..and any alliances that cannot hold their sov...will naturally contract back to a point where they have the manpower to hold it. The whole point is to end the sprawling wasteland of empty SOV space.... and this should do it. If a 30,000 man alliance cant have a few people with entosis ships on the standby to stop SOV attacks on thier structures then they dont deserve that space. What will happen to any alliance that can't win on the field is that they will lose all their space. The system is very brittle in terms of points of failure. You can't afford to lose on the defensive. You can try reffing all of pure blind, we might even withdraw from many areas that we don't live in. But we won't allow you to use it. Its ok..... you can stage out of X-70 and become"NPC trash" as well :) we have no delusions of holding SOV..we will however take some :) and then lose it..and take it again..and lose it... ect ect The fun will be roaming fleets of "sov ships" RFing multiple Goon/CFC systems at once... and then the rolling system fights to see if you can hold it. Forget killing your ratters.... we will be in the business of killing IHUBS :) and TCU's..so stock up :) will we be perma dropping on your goodies ...so enjoy...
Elenahina Agony Unleashed Agony Empire 191	Posted - 2015.03.09 17:28:40 - [335] - Quote Super Noodle wrote: Fozzie, can you please scrap this entire plan you've come up with to rework sov and start over from scratch. It's garbage. No, it's really not. There are some issues, but it's better than what we have now. Of course tunnelling out of Alcatraz with a plastic spoon would be better than what we have now. Agony Unleashed is Recruiting - Small Gang PvP in Null Sec
Killian Cormac Cormac Distribution 1	Posted - 2015.03.09 17:29:18 - [336] - Quote Promiscuous Female wrote: Killian Cormac wrote: If we can't dream in a fantasy game, where can we dream? eve is a sci-fi game not fantasy checkmate b*tch Just because it has space ships doesn't make it science fiction.
MASSADEATH MASS A DEATH Mordus Angels 63	Posted - 2015.03.09 17:31:07 - [337] - Quote Corey Lean wrote: MASSADEATH wrote: The whole point is to end the sprawling wasteland of empty SOV space.... and this should do it. If a 30,000 man alliance cant have a few people with entosis ships on the standby to stop SOV attacks on thier structures then they dont deserve that space No the point is about fights. Mr. Fozzie the the design goals and end-state of all these changes is to generate fights by controlling the grid through force of arms, not slippery petes or interceptors. So that should exclude the usual suspects from this conversation about sovereignty. so come out and fight...it will be YOUR choice to defend YOUR space or not..... maybe you will have to PvP instead of ratting 24/7? or perhaps you will be forced into 1-5 systems instead of who knows how many you guys "own" And i use the word "own" loosely as they are empty anyway. Forget the past...this is the new future....and it seems to be burning BRIGHT :) What CCP needs to do..is tie POS/moon goo to SOV as well.... so it breaks your ISK control over the game :)
EvilweaselFinance BUTTECORP INC Goonswarm Federation 631	Posted - 2015.03.09 17:31:34 - [338] - Quote MASSADEATH wrote: so come out and fight...it will be YOUR choice to defend YOUR space or not..... maybe you will have to PvP instead of ratting 24/7? the whole point is we're willing to fight, but you won't be
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 597	Posted - 2015.03.09 17:32:47 - [339] - Quote Ranger 1 wrote: Point being, your entire organization doesn't need to be trying to kill interceptors constantly, just devote the necessary number of ships to keep an Entosis point on your important stuff. If you can't do that, scale back a bit until you can. the fact that we can easily do exactly this is immaterial to the point
Amyclas Amatin SUNDERING Goonswarm Federation 641	Posted - 2015.03.09 17:34:10 - [340] - Quote MASSADEATH wrote: Corey Lean wrote: MASSADEATH wrote: The whole point is to end the sprawling wasteland of empty SOV space.... and this should do it. If a 30,000 man alliance cant have a few people with entosis ships on the standby to stop SOV attacks on thier structures then they dont deserve that space No the point is about fights. Mr. Fozzie the the design goals and end-state of all these changes is to generate fights by controlling the grid through force of arms, not slippery petes or interceptors. So that should exclude the usual suspects from this conversation about sovereignty. so come out and fight...it will be YOUR choice to defend YOUR space or not..... maybe you will have to PvP instead of ratting 24/7? or perhaps you will be forced into 1-5 systems instead of who knows how many you guys "own" And i use the word "own" loosely as they are empty anyway. Forget the past...this is the new future....and it seems to be burning BRIGHT :) What CCP needs to do..is tie POS/moon goo to SOV as well.... so it breaks your ISK control over the game :) You and what army is going to force the 5 of us who actually log in with our 6000 accounts each into what constellation? 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?"

Primary This Rifter 4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation 721	Posted - 2015.03.09 17:34:28 - [341] - 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. Alternatively I would be happy to accept ISK to come and teach you how to fly. I hear wild goose chases make for fun and engaging gameplay. Reminder: CCP thinks you have no right to your alliance logos.
xttz GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 459	Posted - 2015.03.09 17:34:40 - [342] - Quote Gevlon Goblin wrote: This argument over interceptors completely misses the problem with the proposed Entosis mechanic: The "trollceptor" isn't impossible to catch, it's unworthy to catch. People PvP for 4 reasons: Fat killmails. Entosis ships will be cheaper than a Retriever. Tears of the enemy. Entosis ships are sent out to die, no one will cry over them. "Kudos" for being good. An Entosis ship is a lone (very fast) sitting ducks orbiting a structure with a warning sign over it. It'll likely be AFK. To win. You'll never win. You can save/take the timer today, but as the enemy suffered no losses, he'll be back. Or someone else, like a drunken highsec miner in a 1 day old alt and takes your Sov if you let down your guard just once. So a player has zero reason to hunt them. The alliance has, so people will be red pen CTA-d/paplinked into Entosis fleets and will hate it. Living in Sov will be a forever grind of mandatory Entosis-frig hunting. While there were crying over the boredom of structure grind, you could at least hope for an escalation. No one will escalate a tackled frigate. In structure grind, you were at least in a fleet, half-AFK, chatting. In Entosis duty, you'll be all alone, orbiting a structure. If it will be introduced, everyone who considers EVE a game will leave nullsec. The obsessive-compulsive will orbit the structures with 32 accounts (likely with bots). Who are you and why are you making good posts with Gevlon's character
Ranger 1 Ranger Corp Vae. Victis. 6166	Posted - 2015.03.09 17:35:21 - [343] - Quote Amyclas Amatin wrote: MASSADEATH wrote: Does not seem too hard to counter this..just put your own entosis module on the structure...bam problem solved... or spread a fleet of sniping corms around the structure.... insta pop ceptors.... All I see is goon tears and they are filling up my cup We will be enjoying this new form of SOV ..and any alliances that cannot hold their sov...will naturally contract back to a point where they have the manpower to hold it. The whole point is to end the sprawling wasteland of empty SOV space.... and this should do it. If a 30,000 man alliance cant have a few people with entosis ships on the standby to stop SOV attacks on thier structures then they dont deserve that space. What will happen to any alliance that can't win on the field is that they will lose all their space. The system is very brittle in terms of points of failure. You can't afford to lose on the defensive. You can try reffing all of pure blind, we might even withdraw from many areas that we don't live in. But we won't allow you to use it. So.... your area of control shrinks to something manageable and the downside is that you get lots more good fights close to home with people you've likely never seen before? For other folks they get the chance to make a stake and experience 0.0. Even if they can't hold their sov, they have fun and perhaps find an area where they DO manage to hang on and grow? I'm not really seeing a downside here... for anyone. View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents.
Eli Apol Pro Synergy 329	Posted - 2015.03.09 17:35:55 - [344] - Quote Amyclas Amatin wrote: You and what army is going to force the 5 of us who actually log in with our 6000 accounts each into what constellation? What army do we need? I thought absolutely any single player can just jump in an interceptor and roam about Deklein for a lark...we don't need an army/blob remember?
Sougiro Seta We are not bad. Just unlucky Goonswarm Federation 16	Posted - 2015.03.09 17:35:58 - [345] - Quote All this **** is so wrong I agreed with Gevlon Goblin twice in a week. Please stop.
EvilweaselFinance BUTTECORP INC Goonswarm Federation 631	Posted - 2015.03.09 17:36:15 - [346] - Quote Ranger 1 wrote: So.... your area of control shrinks to something manageable and the downside is that you get lots more good fights close to home with people you've likely never seen before? we don't get fights with enemies in interceptors, a ship designed so you never have to take a fight you might lose
Veskrashen Justified Chaos Spaceship Bebop 756	Posted - 2015.03.09 17:36:27 - [347] - Quote 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 You combat probe onto grid with them, and blap them before they leave grid. This isn't hard. Or, alternatively, since you have links and they don't you simply fly faster than them and kill them. Again, this isn't hard. We Gallente have a saying: "CCP created the Gallente Militia to train the Fighters..."
Xavi Bastanold Koalas In The Rain 44	Posted - 2015.03.09 17:36:36 - [348] - Quote I don't really see a problem with trollceptors for the simple reason that 1000-man coalitions will always have a numbers advantage no matter the mechanics. As Stalin said, quantity has a quality all its own. So that's a given. What is more important is to create a mechanic that allows anywhere from 10 to 100 players to take a system, barring resistance. If a coalition responds then it's not going to happen, but if they don't then it happens. Should a coalition system be taken, then the next question for the coalition is did they really want that system anyway? Maybe they just want fights and so that's great. On the hand, what if a neighboring coalition decides to allow a few systems to become independent buffers and spare themselves the added involvement. That frees them up to hammer the next-door coalition that's so intent on fighting every border battle. This sort of thing is good for EVE. Good hunting, Xavi
Killian Cormac Cormac Distribution 1	Posted - 2015.03.09 17:36:46 - [349] - Quote EvilweaselFinance wrote: the whole point is we're willing to fight Doesn't sound like it.
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 599	Posted - 2015.03.09 17:37:03 - [350] - Quote Ranger 1 wrote: So.... your area of control shrinks to something manageable and the downside is that you get lots more good fights close to home with people you've likely never seen before? For other folks they get the chance to make a stake and experience 0.0. Even if they can't hold their sov, they have fun and perhaps find an area where they DO manage to hang on and grow? I'm not really seeing a downside here... for anyone. interceptors don't generate fights, they run away why would you contest sov with anything but the cheapest, most maneuverable ships in the new system

baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 15430	Posted - 2015.03.09 17:37:14 - [351] - Quote 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 We toss around supercaps and titans like subcaps. Cost is in no way a barrier. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 599	Posted - 2015.03.09 17:38:35 - [352] - Quote Eli Apol wrote: Amyclas Amatin wrote: You and what army is going to force the 5 of us who actually log in with our 6000 accounts each into what constellation? What army do we need? I thought absolutely any single player can just jump in an interceptor and roam about Deklein for a lark...we don't need an army/blob remember? the point is our numbers allow us to defend our sov, but the fact that you need goonswarm federation caliber supernumeracy to hold space is a bit of a problem for anyone else
Eli Apol Pro Synergy 330	Posted - 2015.03.09 17:38:42 - [353] - Quote Promiscuous Female wrote: Ranger 1 wrote: So.... your area of control shrinks to something manageable and the downside is that you get lots more good fights close to home with people you've likely never seen before? For other folks they get the chance to make a stake and experience 0.0. Even if they can't hold their sov, they have fun and perhaps find an area where they DO manage to hang on and grow? I'm not really seeing a downside here... for anyone. interceptors don't generate fights, they run away why would you contest sov with anything but the cheapest, most maneuverable ships in the new system Because they can be countered by a T1 ewar frig that's even cheaper - so long as there's someone awake in local anyways. edit: Anyone noticed that goons have to blob the forums to try and win their arguments?
Arrendis GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 311	Posted - 2015.03.09 17:39:27 - [354] - Quote First off, Fozzie, thank you for taking the time to give us a better idea of the intentions and thought process behind the Entosis Link. As you can see from many of the comments, the idea that the victory should go to the side that can maintain successful military control of a grid isnGÇÖt one the community feels is a bad idea. Yes, there are almost certainly people who will feel that measures like this are functionally nothing more than games of GÇÿcapture the flagGÇÖ, but to those individuals I say: What isnGÇÖt? Blowing something up, after all, is really just node control - you carved out a period of time where you were able to click on the flag (ie: do dps) while the other team couldnGÇÖt do enough to stop you. More importantly, GÇÿcapture the flagGÇÖ itself is simulating objective control is actual warfare. ItGÇÖs how people for a very long time have represented being able to take a location, or secure an objective, or destroy a target. So if something resembling the oldest form of wargaming finds its way into our game simulating warGÇª where, exactly, is the problem? That said, I believe the Entosis Link, by its very nature, falls short of some of your goals. CCP Fozzie wrote: The Entosis Link itself should have the minimum possible effect on what ships and tactics players can choose. The restrictions and penalties on the Entosis Link should be as simple and understandable as possible. If the Entosis Link is functioning as a barometer of the fight (or fights, in the case of multiple command node spawns) for control of a Sov Structure, then it makes sense that you donGÇÖt want it to effect the fitting of the ships used in these fights any more than necessary. It is, of course, almost impossible to do so - at the very least, as a module, it will take up one of the shipGÇÖs available slots. This, in turn, pushes the metagame toward ships with utility high-slots, such as Ishtars, Hurricanes, Tempests, etc. Any ship that sacrifices a weapon to fit a link is reducing its contribution to actually controlling the grid, in favor of being what amounts to a battlefield reporter, letting CONCORD know whatGÇÖs going on. ThatGÇÖs suboptimal. In addition, as you can see from the comments in this thread and the original one, the restrictions and penalties on the Entosis Link arenGÇÖt well-understood yet. Does it prevent cloaking? If it doesnGÇÖt, does the module deactivate as soon as you cloak, or does it complete its cycle? If it completes its cycle, does that cycle GÇÿcountGÇÖ for the structure? And thatGÇÖs just asking about a Cloaking Device. As a module, the Entosis Link cannot help but affect the combat effectiveness of available fittings, and through that, the choice of viable ships to use the link and what role those ships play in the larger combat. But what if itGÇÖs not a module? My first thought was an implant - but then you canGÇÖt have it not* effectively interfering with alliesGÇÖ defense. What would be needed instead would be some form of social construct that allowed players and organizations to select which GÇÿlinkGÇÖ (or links) the structure/command node is influenced by at any given time. Like a fleet. If, instead of a new module, a new fleet mechanic was used as your barometer, then fitting requirements and concerns, and the attendant ship selection issues, all vanish. Come up with a snappy name for it, like GÇÿFleet ColorsGÇÖ or GÇÿFleet StandardGÇÖ, except actually snappy and not really, really bad like those two. The idea here is that a given fleet represents a given Alliance. A fleet forming in defense of an FCON station represents FCONGÇÖs presence on-grid and potential control of the grid. A fleet representing Goonswarm on that same grid doesnGÇÖt make FCONGÇÖs space any more FCON. Obviously, then, you need to have a method for determining who the fleet is representing. The equally obvious metric is GÇÿwhoGÇÖs in the fleet?GÇÖ While single-alliance fleets might seem like the way to approach this, itGÇÖs also likely this will simply see the current blocs consolidating into as few alliances as possible in order to simplify defense and coordination - in effect, creating GÇÿCFC 1GÇÖ, GÇÿCFC 2GÇÖ, GÇÿN3 1GÇÖ, GÇÿN3 2GÇÖ etc, with membership based purely on regional location, and member corps GÇÿdeployingGÇÖ from one alliance to another within the same bloc. Which, while it might be rather amusing to watch, wonGÇÖt really solve anything. Instead, as a simple framework, I suggest simply using leadership. The Fleet Commander is the obvious point, but this introduces a single point-of-failure, and as we all know, single points-of-failure are bad. But a fleet ranges in size from 2 people to 256, with anywhere from 1 to 31 leadership positions. Use those. 51% of a fleetGÇÖs leadership positions (Fleet Commander, Wing Commanders, Squad Commanders) would have to be members of the same alliance in order for that fleet to represent that alliance in Sov warfare. Hodge-podge fleets where no single alliance is capable of mustering 51% of the leadership would simply not exert an influence on grid control, but alliances able to muster a solid leadership cadre would be able to take advantage of allies willing to fly under their colors. In addition, each fleet would only be able to influence a single Sov Node (structure or command node) at a time. This way, rather than (to continue our example), FCON forming up a single fleet and contributing 16 people (51% of the maximum number of leadership positions) in order to defend 10 Command nodes, while CONDI, RZR, etc fill out the fleet in warm bodies, the leadership of the defense would need to fall on the shoulders of the defending alliance. Of course, filling a fleet with warm bodies opens the door to spies reporting precisely which pilots are in leadership positions, and so need to be killed in order to cripple a fleetGÇÖs influence. (Continued)
Sougiro Seta We are not bad. Just unlucky Goonswarm Federation 17	Posted - 2015.03.09 17:39:59 - [355] - Quote Killian Cormac wrote: EvilweaselFinance wrote: the whole point is we're willing to fight Doesn't sound like it. fighting ~ spend 4h a day shooting space gypsies flying frigates/t1 cruisers, that's a job. Challenging a sov should be accesible to even 5 players alliances, but at list they should risk something.
Arrendis GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 311	Posted - 2015.03.09 17:40:14 - [356] - Quote (Continued from above) Fleet Influence on a sov node would function in a manner similar to the Entosis Links - at 51% of the leadership of a fleet being from a single alliance, the effective range of that influence would be limited to 25km from the nearest command-level ship to the Node or structure. At 75%, the range increases to 50km, and at 100%, 200km. Similarly, the fleetGÇÖs influence does not effect the node/structure until the node/structure has been in range for 5 minutes for 51%, 3m for 75%, or 2m at 100% alliance leadership. Any ship which is cloaked or off-grid in a leadership position would not count toward establishing Fleet Influence. This way, in order for a fleet to actually represent its alliance, the leadership of the fleet must be on-grid, uncloaked, and vulnerable. Defending leadership assets would become of critical importance. Obviously, itGÇÖs not a perfect proposal - you canGÇÖt reasonably have all of your fleetGÇÖs leadership unable to be remotely repaired in most fights, but at the same time, without that vulnerability, how do you prevent node contests from simply devolving into GÇÿdrop supers on itGÇÖ? At the other end of the scale, though, a trollceptor is not going to control a grid - unless itGÇÖs unopposed, in which case it certainly should. Undefended space, poorly defended space, these things shouldnGÇÖt take a lot of pushing in order to topple. And sovholders should definitely be required to show up for the defense of their own space. The idea of leaving the defense to GÇÿPapa GoonGÇÖ or some renter allianceGÇÖs landlord coalition would only leave us with the current sprawling morass of systems that nobody with the wherewithal to take and hold sov wants to live in, but plenty of people who donGÇÖt have the strength to stake their own claims are willing to rent out. This only serves to stifle any hope of a dynamic nullsec, and funnel money into the pockets of the Coalition landlords. But when thereGÇÖs a fight - and there should be fights - the Command Node system will effectively force responding forces to spread out around the constellation in order to facilitate defense (or capture). There will have to be multiple responders, after all, or itGÇÖs simply a case of GÇÿthe fastest ship winsGÇÖ, and thatGÇÖs really not in keeping with the idea that this is meant to represent effective military control of space. WhatGÇÖs needed under this idea is a way to prevent every fight from simply becoming an escalation to GÇÿwho has supercapitals nearby to drop on the nodes?GÇÖ The jump changes helped in this regard, but only to the point where subcapitals would now be used as skirmishers to delay any hostile victory until the supercapitals can arrive to lock down the node/structure. Even with that obvious work still to be done, I feel this idea better matches your goals than the use of a new module does. *- NOTE: These are examples of utility high slot ships, not necessarily optimal ships for any given situation.
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 599	Posted - 2015.03.09 17:40:39 - [357] - Quote Veskrashen 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 You combat probe onto grid with them, and blap them before they leave grid. This isn't hard. Or, alternatively, since you have links and they don't you simply fly faster than them and kill them. Again, this isn't hard. they must not have dscan where you live "oh hrm combat probes on dscan, maybe i should stay here"
EvilweaselFinance BUTTECORP INC Goonswarm Federation 632	Posted - 2015.03.09 17:41:08 - [358] - Quote Killian Cormac wrote: EvilweaselFinance wrote: the whole point is we're willing to fight Doesn't sound like it. we have the npc/moa crowd demanding to use ships that absolutely cannot be caught for their entosis hulls, while we're saying that we're fine with anything that will actually be at risk and we can blow up because then we get to blow it up sounds like you have a reading problem to me
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 599	Posted - 2015.03.09 17:41:40 - [359] - Quote Eli Apol wrote: Because they can be countered by a T1 ewar frig that's even cheaper - so long as there's someone awake in local anyways. edit: Anyone noticed that goons have to blob the forums to try and win their arguments? you counter an interceptor at one capture node / sov structure and it just shrugs and goes to another one nothing warps faster than an interceptor so enjoy spewing logarithmically increasing numbers of evemannen to bore out a single interceptor
Killian Cormac Cormac Distribution 2	Posted - 2015.03.09 17:42:53 - [360] - Quote Promiscuous Female wrote: interceptors don't generate fights Interceptors destabilize sov, and the threat of losing sov DOES generate fights, with plenty of advance notice.

Corey Lean GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 73	Posted - 2015.03.09 17:43:17 - [361] - Quote MASSADEATH wrote: so come out and fight...it will be YOUR choice to defend YOUR space or not..... maybe you will have to PvP instead of ratting 24/7 Haha what, people try to fight you all day long but you run away..in your interceptors and stealth bombers. At least you finally came clean about wanting sov though
Eli Apol Pro Synergy 330	Posted - 2015.03.09 17:43:26 - [362] - Quote Promiscuous Female wrote: Eli Apol wrote: Because they can be countered by a T1 ewar frig that's even cheaper - so long as there's someone awake in local anyways. edit: Anyone noticed that goons have to blob the forums to try and win their arguments? you counter an interceptor at one capture node / sov structure and it just shrugs and goes to another one nothing warps faster than an interceptor so enjoy spewing logarithmically increasing numbers of evemannen to bore out a single interceptor I think you mean "Nothing warps faster than an interceptor using an entosis link that can't even start its warp for 2 minutes..." And the fallacy is revealed...because pretty much everything other than a freighter can do that.
Alp Khan GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 289	Posted - 2015.03.09 17:43:29 - [363] - Quote Eli Apol wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: yeah actually i do find it pretty tiring to have to slog through two hours of crap in order to unearth the nuggets of information i need to actually be able to play the game because there is some fear or impotence in the arena of even echoing the information on the official communications mechanisms Nothing that interesting was really said except 'Trollceptors can easily get nerf-batted if they get out of hand' There ya go, saved you 2 hours and about 150 pages of Goon forum posts. With that he also misses the ridiculousness of people who comment on sov null individual income with no prior null experience.
Primary This Rifter 4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation 721	Posted - 2015.03.09 17:43:44 - [364] - Quote Killian Cormac wrote: EvilweaselFinance wrote: the whole point is we're willing to fight Doesn't sound like it. See: Promiscuous Female wrote: Ranger 1 wrote: So.... your area of control shrinks to something manageable and the downside is that you get lots more good fights close to home with people you've likely never seen before? For other folks they get the chance to make a stake and experience 0.0. Even if they can't hold their sov, they have fun and perhaps find an area where they DO manage to hang on and grow? I'm not really seeing a downside here... for anyone. interceptors don't generate fights, they run away why would you contest sov with anything but the cheapest, most maneuverable ships in the new system Reminder: CCP thinks you have no right to your alliance logos.
1Robert McNamara1 The Graduates Forged of Fire 69	Posted - 2015.03.09 17:43:48 - [365] - Quote Just make it burn fuel. The Entosis link should require say heavy water or some PI-goo, spent at the start of the cycle. This would make it so only serious people could or would use them. Interceptors and other kiting ships would have to gimp their fits to bring enough fuel to actually reinforce something. Sov holders will likely have gobs of heavy water laying around because it's only used in Roquals and fuel blocks.
EvilweaselFinance BUTTECORP INC Goonswarm Federation 632	Posted - 2015.03.09 17:44:14 - [366] - Quote Killian Cormac wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: interceptors don't generate fights Interceptors destabilize sov, and the threat of losing sov DOES generate fights, with plenty of advance notice. no it doesn't, because the point of the interceptor is to bore your enemy to death not give him fights
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 599	Posted - 2015.03.09 17:44:21 - [367] - Quote Killian Cormac wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: interceptors don't generate fights Interceptors destabilize sov, and the threat of losing sov DOES generate fights, with plenty of advance notice. no it doesn't you just bring interceptors to contest the capture node pimples too why would you ever risk anything when you don't have to, the job gets done either way
DeadDuck The Legion of Spoon Curatores Veritatis Alliance 135	Posted - 2015.03.09 17:44:29 - [368] - Quote afkalt wrote: DeadDuck wrote: The danger is not in the single guy that comes along in a fast ship to mess with your sov. The abuse will be in a group of 5-10 fast ships protecting the "troll ceptor(s)" that can pretty much mess up the sov of a solid alliance without much effort or risk. That's it... Bring 2 troll ceptors, 1 of grid booster, 3-5 ortrus/cynabals/Ishtars + 1 or 2 keres + 1 Logistic and you have a winner, to turn sov a nightmare to keep to 99,99% of the alliances in game. This WILL happen unless there is a penalty to ship velocity of some kind even if It would make so much more sense to restrict the enthosis link to cap ships. So roaming gangs get a fight? The HORROR! The abject HORROR! If you live in your space and you cant handle this crap in your own, designated prime time....you deserve to lose it. Good lord, you'd think these things are going to come crawling out from under your beds whilst you sleep. Sorry but I dont have afraid of fights ... is what I do 100% (one hundred percent) of the time I'm logged in... The problem is that Providence is visited by dozens of roams every day. Sometimes there are hundreds of hostiles around in diferent gangs to get fights. Most of them ends dead but it takes time to deal with it... If every single one of them start bringing enthosis links to get fights, well you can pretty much see what will hapen in no time...
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 599	Posted - 2015.03.09 17:45:23 - [369] - Quote Eli Apol wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: Eli Apol wrote: Because they can be countered by a T1 ewar frig that's even cheaper - so long as there's someone awake in local anyways. edit: Anyone noticed that goons have to blob the forums to try and win their arguments? you counter an interceptor at one capture node / sov structure and it just shrugs and goes to another one nothing warps faster than an interceptor so enjoy spewing logarithmically increasing numbers of evemannen to bore out a single interceptor I think you mean "Nothing warps faster than an interceptor using an entosis link that can't even start its warp for 2 minutes..." And the fallacy is revealed...because pretty much everything other than a freighter can do that. ah yes the situation where you use PSYCHIC POWERS to determine which system the interceptor plans on hitting before its entosis module cycles and allows it to exit system
Arrendis GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 311	Posted - 2015.03.09 17:46:06 - [370] - Quote xttz wrote: Gevlon Goblin wrote: This argument over interceptors completely misses the problem with the proposed Entosis mechanic: The "trollceptor" isn't impossible to catch, it's unworthy to catch. People PvP for 4 reasons: Fat killmails. Entosis ships will be cheaper than a Retriever. Tears of the enemy. Entosis ships are sent out to die, no one will cry over them. "Kudos" for being good. An Entosis ship is a lone (very fast) sitting ducks orbiting a structure with a warning sign over it. It'll likely be AFK. To win. You'll never win. You can save/take the timer today, but as the enemy suffered no losses, he'll be back. Or someone else, like a drunken highsec miner in a 1 day old alt and takes your Sov if you let down your guard just once. So a player has zero reason to hunt them. The alliance has, so people will be red pen CTA-d/paplinked into Entosis fleets and will hate it. Living in Sov will be a forever grind of mandatory Entosis-frig hunting. While there were crying over the boredom of structure grind, you could at least hope for an escalation. No one will escalate a tackled frigate. In structure grind, you were at least in a fleet, half-AFK, chatting. In Entosis duty, you'll be all alone, orbiting a structure. If it will be introduced, everyone who considers EVE a game will leave nullsec. The obsessive-compulsive will orbit the structures with 32 accounts (likely with bots). Who are you and why are you making good posts with Gevlon's character It really has been kinda scary, hasn't it?

PotatoOverdose Royal Black Watch Highlanders DARKNESS. 2630	Posted - 2015.03.09 17:47:16 - [371] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Why should a solo interceptor be the deciding factor for control of an entire system? Or any factor at all? Why should anyone keep control of a system they don't defend? What entitles them to control of that system if they won't fight for it? The only time the "solo interceptor" is a sov threat is if it is allowed to capture a sov structure, 11 times. First to reinforce the TCU, and then in ten of the subsequent sovereignty nodes. I'm sorry, if you can't be assed to defend against one ceptor doing THAT, you don't deserve to hold that particular system. Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Yep. Interceptors, and whatever counter they can devise against interceptors. Probably more interceptors. ... That their only counter is themselves? Well that and: Cormorants, Svipuls, Confessors, Caracals, Cerberii, Cynabals, Instalocking Lokis, Instalocking Gnosis, Vagabonds, Navy Omens, Exequror Navy Issues, Insta Canes, Faction fit Huggins, Faction Fit Rapier, and if they're at long range: Rail Tengus, Rail Eagles, Rail Proteus, Arty Lokis, Cerberii (again), Nagas, Beam Legions, Beam Zealots, Arty Munnin, Faction fit Huggins (again), Faction Fit Rapier (again). But no, let's just say interceptors are the only thing that can kill an interceptor forced to stay on grid. Get rekt.
Jenn aSide Smokin Aces. 10145	Posted - 2015.03.09 17:48:02 - [372] - Quote Gorski Car wrote: There are so many things you can do to counter trollceptors I cant help but think that this is a vocal minority overreacting and creating doomsday scenarios. This kind of incautious thinking is what causes imbalances in the 1st place. You should be thinking "what if they are right, that would be bad, better to prevent that from happening in the 1st place". It appears that the csm and ccp wouldn't know prudence if it bit them in the warp engines, which is why all these ideas end up being crap when they are implemented. The only reason people like goons get all these tools to run completely over everything is because of this.
Elenahina Agony Unleashed Agony Empire 194	Posted - 2015.03.09 17:48:10 - [373] - Quote Leeloo Fee wrote: . remove 'Truesec' Agreed. Adding treusec killed nullsec income for your line memebers - this is why so many of them have incursion and mission alts in highsec. It's the fastest way for them to make money, and it scales infinitely. Quote: . remove jump fatigue **** no. It's nice being able to run around in a gang of six cruisers without worrying about the PL super gang 15 light years away hot dropping you because they're bored. Quote: . time dilation They do - they constantly upgrade the hardware. And if any of your suggestions would actually work, don't you think they would have done them by now? Please stop spewing nonsense. Quote: . Interceptor Bubble Immunity I have to admit, I really don't think ceptors should have been given bubble immunity. Quote: . Cloakly campers FFS man up and either ignore the cloaky or kill it when it suddenly ninjas. Cloaky campers are not the effing boogey man, and they're not impossible to kill - people kill them fairly frequently in my experience. Agony Unleashed is Recruiting - Small Gang PvP in Null Sec
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 601	Posted - 2015.03.09 17:48:46 - [374] - Quote PotatoOverdose wrote: [quote=Kaarous Aldurald] Cormorants, Svipuls, Confessors, Caracals, Cerberii, Cynabals, Instalocking Lokis, Instalocking Gnosis, Vagabonds, Navy Omens, Exequror Navy Issues, Insta Canes, Faction fit Huggins, Faction Fit Rapier, and if they're at long range: Rail Tengus, Rail Eagles, Rail Proteus, Arty Lokis, Cerberii (again), Nagas, Beam Legions, Beam Zealots, Arty Munnin, Faction fit Huggins (again), Faction Fit Rapier (again). But no, let's just say interceptors are the only thing that can kill an interceptor forced to stay on grid. Get rekt. would like to see some eft fits/graphs of any of those tracking an interceptor at long range (150km or so)
1Robert McNamara1 The Graduates Forged of Fire 69	Posted - 2015.03.09 17:49:15 - [375] - Quote Not sure if this is the right place for more suggestions but here goes: iHub needs 2 timers. It's by far the most valuable thing in the game that causes the most logistical headache. Give it two timers. Make it so iHub upgrades can push through the true-sec ceiling so lvl 5 upgrades actually have value in every system irrespective of true-sec. True-sec is still useful for belt-rats and maybe determining top end sites, but the number of sites in total should be decided by the iHub The 'Industry' index needs to be mining, salvaging, and PI output at the very least. You need more things contributing to the index that involve industry.
MASSADEATH MASS A DEATH Mordus Angels 63	Posted - 2015.03.09 17:50:01 - [376] - Quote Promiscuous Female wrote: Eli Apol wrote: Amyclas Amatin wrote: You and what army is going to force the 5 of us who actually log in with our 6000 accounts each into what constellation? What army do we need? I thought absolutely any single player can just jump in an interceptor and roam about Deklein for a lark...we don't need an army/blob remember? the point is our numbers allow us to defend our sov, but the fact that you need goonswarm federation caliber supernumeracy to hold space is a bit of a problem for anyone else Well it gets us 1 step closer than the current mechanics.... NOW we cant hold anything since you need a cap blob to grind a bazillion EHP structures.. FUTURE.... at least we can deny YOU (CFC/GOONS) all/most of your sov... save a few systems that you can 24/7 monitor (and even then we will offline your station services cause we can) and or cloaky camp you and strike when you move your "entosis guards" so .... all and all... its a WIN.... will we take some SOV...yes.... will we lose it.... YES .... will we kill you and have lots of PvP doing it...oHHH YESS
Rovinia Exotic Dancers Union SONS of BANE 357	Posted - 2015.03.09 17:51:00 - [377] - Quote - Perhaps the Entosis Link should have the same mechanic like a Cyno? You can warp to it from everywhere in the system and the user is immobile for a certain amount of time. So the user needs backup (--> Grid control) or takes a large risk to lose his ship. - Exclude ships with the "Interdiction Nullfied" ability from using Entosis Links. Interceptors are just too hard to catch if you are not in a very specialized gang. - Also, let large ships like Battleships use the Entosis Link significantly faster than smaller ones (not sure about caps here...). Would make up a bit for their lower warpspeed, at least in Sov space. And encourage players to use bigger ships than frigates.
Borachon GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 31	Posted - 2015.03.09 17:51:03 - [378] - Quote MASSADEATH wrote: Its ok..... you can stage out of X-70 and become"NPC trash" as well :) Be careful what you wish for. If this happens, basically every ihub iun the game will die within a month, and no one will put up new ones. Anomaly ratting will, as a result, die. If I was GSF leadership (thankfully I'm not), I would keep sov in one consteallation of station systems for industry bonuses and move all combat pilots to NPC nullsec. 5zxx, X-70, and N5y are about to get very full, while almost all of sov 0.0 would be completely empty. And you think this is better?
Amyclas Amatin SUNDERING Goonswarm Federation 643	Posted - 2015.03.09 17:52:17 - [379] - Quote MASSADEATH wrote: Well it gets us 1 step closer than the current mechanics.... NOW we cant hold anything since you need a cap blob to grind a bazillion EHP structures.. FUTURE.... at least we can deny YOU (CFC/GOONS) all/most of your sov... save a few systems that you can 24/7 monitor (and even then we will offline your station services cause we can) and or cloaky camp you and strike when you move your "entosis guards" so .... all and all... its a WIN.... will we take some SOV...yes.... will we lose it.... YES .... will we kill you and have lots of PvP doing it...oHHH YESS You underestimate the lengths an alliance will go to in order to monitor things if it has to. It's serious business after all. 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?"
EvilweaselFinance BUTTECORP INC Goonswarm Federation 635	Posted - 2015.03.09 17:52:29 - [380] - Quote MASSADEATH wrote: FUTURE.... at least we can deny YOU (CFC/GOONS) all/most of your sov... save a few systems that you can 24/7 monitor (and even then we will offline your station services cause we can) and or cloaky camp you and strike when you move your "entosis guards" only so long as you can do it at zero risk, considering how quick you run away anytime you get punched in the nose hence your zeal for trollceptors, because you know you're going to get murderized if you use any ship that can't flee instantly

Princess Cherista State War Academy Caldari State 29	Posted - 2015.03.09 17:52:40 - [381] - Quote Promiscuous Female wrote: would like to see some eft fits/graphs of any of those tracking an interceptor at long range (150km or so) They would have to lock it first before it warps off.
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 601	Posted - 2015.03.09 17:52:44 - [382] - Quote MASSADEATH wrote: will we kill you and have lots of PvP doing it...oHHH YESS nah you will grind out sov in interceptors like everyone else these do not generate pvp
MASSADEATH MASS A DEATH Mordus Angels 63	Posted - 2015.03.09 17:53:06 - [383] - Quote Corey Lean wrote: MASSADEATH wrote: so come out and fight...it will be YOUR choice to defend YOUR space or not..... maybe you will have to PvP instead of ratting 24/7 Haha what, people try to fight you all day long but you run away..in your interceptors and stealth bombers. At least you finally came clean about wanting sov though ohh by fight you mean..... blob 4 various fleets onto our 1 fleet with 5:1 plus ratios?, and then dogpile on all the CFC alliances as well...and then a few caps and dreads to boot.. :) ohh that kind of fighting.... see we are a Guerrilla force... we strike and move....strike and move... we dont bash our heads into your 30,000 man alliance head on.... why would we? more goon tears please ....
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 601	Posted - 2015.03.09 17:53:32 - [384] - Quote Princess Cherista wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: would like to see some eft fits/graphs of any of those tracking an interceptor at long range (150km or so) They would have to lock it first before it warps off. please do not interject reality into the argument
Elenahina Agony Unleashed Agony Empire 194	Posted - 2015.03.09 17:53:44 - [385] - Quote baltec1 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 We toss around supercaps and titans like subcaps. Cost is in no way a barrier. That's the problem, you know. CCP continues to think it is. Agony Unleashed is Recruiting - Small Gang PvP in Null Sec
PotatoOverdose Royal Black Watch Highlanders DARKNESS. 2630	Posted - 2015.03.09 17:53:46 - [386] - Quote Promiscuous Female wrote: PotatoOverdose wrote: [quote=Kaarous Aldurald] Cormorants, Svipuls, Confessors, Caracals, Cerberii, Cynabals, Instalocking Lokis, Instalocking Gnosis, Vagabonds, Navy Omens, Exequror Navy Issues, Insta Canes, Faction fit Huggins, Faction Fit Rapier, and if they're at long range: Rail Tengus, Rail Eagles, Rail Proteus, Arty Lokis, Cerberii (again), Nagas, Beam Legions, Beam Zealots, Arty Munnin, Faction fit Huggins (again), Faction Fit Rapier (again). But no, let's just say interceptors are the only thing that can kill an interceptor forced to stay on grid. Get rekt. would like to see some eft fits/graphs of any of those tracking an interceptor at long range (150km or so) I'm at work right now, but plug in an Arty Loki into EFT and it wrecks an intty going at 5k at 120km. Rail Gus will annihialate an inty at 150 going at any speed. The only thing that intys have going in the current meta is their abillity to bravely run away. Take that away from them, force them to stay on grid, and it's "Lol Inty go Squish".
EvilweaselFinance BUTTECORP INC Goonswarm Federation 635	Posted - 2015.03.09 17:53:49 - [387] - Quote MASSADEATH wrote: see we are a Guerrilla force... we strike and move....strike and move... we dont bash our heads into your 30,000 man alliance head on.... why would we? "we don't do pvp, because we always lose"
Eli Apol Pro Synergy 333	Posted - 2015.03.09 17:53:54 - [388] - Quote Promiscuous Female wrote: Eli Apol wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: Eli Apol wrote: Because they can be countered by a T1 ewar frig that's even cheaper - so long as there's someone awake in local anyways. edit: Anyone noticed that goons have to blob the forums to try and win their arguments? you counter an interceptor at one capture node / sov structure and it just shrugs and goes to another one nothing warps faster than an interceptor so enjoy spewing logarithmically increasing numbers of evemannen to bore out a single interceptor I think you mean "Nothing warps faster than an interceptor using an entosis link that can't even start its warp for 2 minutes..." And the fallacy is revealed...because pretty much everything other than a freighter can do that. ah yes the situation where you use PSYCHIC POWERS to determine which system the interceptor plans on hitting before its entosis module cycles and allows it to exit system This is where living in your space helps.
Gizznitt Malikite Agony Unleashed Agony Empire 4236	Posted - 2015.03.09 17:53:55 - [389] - Quote I think there is a lot of unqualified whining in this thread that makes me sad. CCP Rise, as demonstrated through his recent interview, seems to have a firm grasp of our fears. He also has pretty decent goals, and I, for one, appreciate the work he's put in. Frankly, I'm not concerned about a troll ceptor, as that can be countered. I have two main concerns: 1.) I fear the effort involved in RF'ing a structure is much less than the effort needed to secure it post-RF, even when it's uncontested. I feel the effort for the initial RF'ing needs to be comparable to the effort required to re-secure it. Perhaps double the time required to initially RF a structure. 2.) I feel the prime-time window is too small, especially for unused systems. I'm ok with a heavily utilized system having a small vulnerability window, but an unused system should not be isolated from off-time zone attacks. Ideally, you'd have the vulnerability start at 12 hours of vulnerability, and shrink to 4 hours with increased Sov usage indexes.
John McCreedy Eve Defence Force The Kadeshi 170	Posted - 2015.03.09 17:54:07 - [390] - Quote MASSADEATH wrote: Corey Lean wrote: MASSADEATH wrote: The whole point is to end the sprawling wasteland of empty SOV space.... and this should do it. If a 30,000 man alliance cant have a few people with entosis ships on the standby to stop SOV attacks on thier structures then they dont deserve that space No the point is about fights. Mr. Fozzie the the design goals and end-state of all these changes is to generate fights by controlling the grid through force of arms, not slippery petes or interceptors. So that should exclude the usual suspects from this conversation about sovereignty. so come out and fight...it will be YOUR choice to defend YOUR space or not..... maybe you will have to PvP instead of ratting 24/7? or perhaps you will be forced into 1-5 systems instead of who knows how many you guys "own" And i use the word "own" loosely as they are empty anyway. Forget the past...this is the new future....and it seems to be burning BRIGHT :) What CCP needs to do..is tie POS/moon goo to SOV as well.... so it breaks your ISK control over the game :) This is a misconception of the issue sov holders have with the proposed changes. My Alliance holds 51 systems of which half (26) have either a Station or an Outpost in them. These systems are held for a variety of reasons, be it jump bridges, moons, good ratting space or strategically important locations for potential wars. AU time zone is the quietest in Eve for the most part so let's say, for example, we have 80 people online during it. Late night Americans, a couple of good AU tz corps. Under the proposed changes, each structure - TCU, iHUB or Station - can be hacked using the new module. Because a single Interceptor can contest our sov, we need 26 people to cover the Outposts, 51 people on the TCUs and 51 people on the iHubs. That's a total of 128 people needed online to secure our sovereignty. We're 48 men short on being able to protect it. It isn't about choice. It isn't about whether we want to fight or hide in the station giving you blueballs, it's that under the proposed system, most alliances simply lack the man power available to protect their system. Because of the vulnerability window, this assumes the 80 people we have online are willing to do nothing in Eve ever but camp one of three structures night after night. How long before people bugger off and do something other than null sec? So the alliance ends up with no AU time zone so picks the next quietest one, for example, U.S. time zone. But 128 people in the U.S. time zone don't want to sit there night after night camping one of three structures so they all leave as well. And so on and so forth. The proposal is ultimately self defeating.

Amyclas Amatin SUNDERING Goonswarm Federation 643	Posted - 2015.03.09 17:54:53 - [391] - Quote Borachon wrote: MASSADEATH wrote: Its ok..... you can stage out of X-70 and become"NPC trash" as well :) Be careful what you wish for. If this happens, basically every ihub iun the game will die within a month, and no one will put up new ones. Anomaly ratting will, as a result, die. If I was GSF leadership (thankfully I'm not), I would keep sov in one consteallation of station systems for industry bonuses and move all combat pilots to NPC nullsec. 5zxx, X-70, and N5y are about to get very full, while almost all of sov 0.0 would be completely empty. And you think this is better? I'm an Ihub slaying addict. If we burn we will take a world with us, a world in flames. No Ihubs no people, get it? 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?"
MASSADEATH MASS A DEATH Mordus Angels 63	Posted - 2015.03.09 17:55:09 - [392] - Quote Promiscuous Female wrote: Eli Apol wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: Eli Apol wrote: Because they can be countered by a T1 ewar frig that's even cheaper - so long as there's someone awake in local anyways. edit: Anyone noticed that goons have to blob the forums to try and win their arguments? you counter an interceptor at one capture node / sov structure and it just shrugs and goes to another one nothing warps faster than an interceptor so enjoy spewing logarithmically increasing numbers of evemannen to bore out a single interceptor I think you mean "Nothing warps faster than an interceptor using an entosis link that can't even start its warp for 2 minutes..." And the fallacy is revealed...because pretty much everything other than a freighter can do that. ah yes the situation where you use PSYCHIC POWERS to determine which system the interceptor plans on hitting before its entosis module cycles and allows it to exit system Thats easily solved it you only own 1 system :) perhaps thats what you will have to do, if goons are incapable of the task to monitor more than one :)
Alp Khan GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 289	Posted - 2015.03.09 17:55:10 - [393] - Quote Gevlon Goblin wrote: This argument over interceptors completely misses the problem with the proposed Entosis mechanic: The "trollceptor" isn't impossible to catch, it's unworthy to catch. People PvP for 4 reasons: Fat killmails. Entosis ships will be cheaper than a Retriever. Tears of the enemy. Entosis ships are sent out to die, no one will cry over them. "Kudos" for being good. An Entosis ship is a lone (very fast) sitting ducks orbiting a structure with a warning sign over it. It'll likely be AFK. To win. You'll never win. You can save/take the timer today, but as the enemy suffered no losses, he'll be back. Or someone else, like a drunken highsec miner in a 1 day old alt and takes your Sov if you let down your guard just once. So a player has zero reason to hunt them. The alliance has, so people will be red pen CTA-d/paplinked into Entosis fleets and will hate it. Living in Sov will be a forever grind of mandatory Entosis-frig hunting. While there were crying over the boredom of structure grind, you could at least hope for an escalation. No one will escalate a tackled frigate. In structure grind, you were at least in a fleet, half-AFK, chatting. In Entosis duty, you'll be all alone, orbiting a structure. If it will be introduced, everyone who considers EVE a game will leave nullsec. The obsessive-compulsive will orbit the structures with 32 accounts (likely with bots). Your rationalization of people seeking kills is partially inaccurate as 'tears' are just something you have been introduced with EVE Online and you treat it as some perfectly measurable variable. It isn't, one can't do that with individual psychology and emotions. I suspect that 'tears' is a concept that you tried to empathize and comprehend but failed, and decided to treat and write-off as if it's a measurable variable. Anyway, the second of part of your post is a surprisingly well forecast, one that I completely agree with and believe in it's accuracy. Seeing a sensible analysis and a good forecast coming from you is truly a rare sight. Well done.
Nolak Ataru KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 766	Posted - 2015.03.09 17:56:02 - [394] - Quote John McCreedy wrote: First off, thanks for posting this. It's good that you're prepared to listen rather than railroad through changes. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA - gasp - AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Good one mate.
Takeshi Kumamato Exiled Kings The Fearless Empire 5	Posted - 2015.03.09 17:56:21 - [395] - Quote A lightweight method to discourage trollceptors: When the entosis link is active, prevent propulsion mods from cycling. The entosis link can be turned off at any time. The entosis link has a one minute reactivation timer. This makes it very frustrating to try to use the link unless you've gained control of the field, as you need to turn off the link every time you need to run away, get reps, or warp off. But every time the link turns off, you have to wait a minute before trying again. While this won't completely discourage the use of trollceptors, it doesn't interfere as much as other suggestions with the intended use of the links.
rsantos Mosquito Squadron Mordus Angels 36	Posted - 2015.03.09 17:56:24 - [396] - Quote Gevlon Goblin wrote: This argument over interceptors completely misses the problem with the proposed Entosis mechanic: The "trollceptor" isn't impossible to catch, it's unworthy to catch. People PvP for 4 reasons: Fat killmails. Entosis ships will be cheaper than a Retriever. Tears of the enemy. Entosis ships are sent out to die, no one will cry over them. "Kudos" for being good. An Entosis ship is a lone (very fast) sitting ducks orbiting a structure with a warning sign over it. It'll likely be AFK. To win. You'll never win. You can save/take the timer today, but as the enemy suffered no losses, he'll be back. Or someone else, like a drunken highsec miner in a 1 day old alt and takes your Sov if you let down your guard just once. So a player has zero reason to hunt them. The alliance has, so people will be red pen CTA-d/paplinked into Entosis fleets and will hate it. Living in Sov will be a forever grind of mandatory Entosis-frig hunting. While there were crying over the boredom of structure grind, you could at least hope for an escalation. No one will escalate a tackled frigate. In structure grind, you were at least in a fleet, half-AFK, chatting. In Entosis duty, you'll be all alone, orbiting a structure. If it will be introduced, everyone who considers EVE a game will leave nullsec. The obsessive-compulsive will orbit the structures with 32 accounts (likely with bots). And then maybe they will realize that living in 10K man alliances is complete bull ****. We will have smaller entities and instead of of troll ceptors you will actualy get a fight without TIDI.
MASSADEATH MASS A DEATH Mordus Angels 63	Posted - 2015.03.09 17:56:36 - [397] - Quote Promiscuous Female wrote: PotatoOverdose wrote: [quote=Kaarous Aldurald] Cormorants, Svipuls, Confessors, Caracals, Cerberii, Cynabals, Instalocking Lokis, Instalocking Gnosis, Vagabonds, Navy Omens, Exequror Navy Issues, Insta Canes, Faction fit Huggins, Faction Fit Rapier, and if they're at long range: Rail Tengus, Rail Eagles, Rail Proteus, Arty Lokis, Cerberii (again), Nagas, Beam Legions, Beam Zealots, Arty Munnin, Faction fit Huggins (again), Faction Fit Rapier (again). But no, let's just say interceptors are the only thing that can kill an interceptor forced to stay on grid. Get rekt. would like to see some eft fits/graphs of any of those tracking an interceptor at long range (150km or so) come on a corm sniping fleet :) and it will cure your doubts
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 602	Posted - 2015.03.09 17:56:53 - [398] - Quote Eli Apol wrote: This is where living in your space helps. deklein is the most populous and densest region in eve with the best indexes so i am not sure where you are going with this
Fix Lag GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 822	Posted - 2015.03.09 17:57:55 - [399] - Quote It's amazing how someone could post so many words with absolutely no meaning behind them. CCP mostly sucks at their job, but Veritas is a pretty cool dude.
Eli Apol Pro Synergy 333	Posted - 2015.03.09 17:58:30 - [400] - Quote Promiscuous Female wrote: Eli Apol wrote: This is where living in your space helps. deklein is the most populous and densest region in eve with the best indexes so i am not sure where you are going with this Ofc those players living there also have to be willing to defend...not just dockup their ratting ships and ask their landlords for a blob to form.

Amyclas Amatin SUNDERING Goonswarm Federation 643	Posted - 2015.03.09 17:58:54 - [401] - Quote Gevlon Goblin wrote: In structure grind, you were at least in a fleet, half-AFK, chatting. In Entosis duty, you'll be all alone, orbiting a structure. To alleviate sentry burn out, I'd use 4-man quadruples, each member of the team should be sexually compatible with the others. 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?"
Arkon Olacar Bearded BattleBears Brave Collective 517	Posted - 2015.03.09 17:59:18 - [402] - Quote PotatoOverdose wrote: The only thing that intys have going in the current meta is their ability to bravely run away. Take that away from them, force them to stay on grid, and it's "Lol Inty go Squish". As long as ceptors with an active link can continue to burn at 6-8km/s, they can still GTFO. Doesn't matter if it can't warp off for another minute if it's 300km away. Warping to zero
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 602	Posted - 2015.03.09 17:59:32 - [403] - Quote MASSADEATH wrote: come on a corm sniping fleet :) and it will cure your doubts ah yes the cormorant with its staggering 80-100km range
PotatoOverdose Royal Black Watch Highlanders DARKNESS. 2631	Posted - 2015.03.09 17:59:43 - [404] - Quote MASSADEATH wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: PotatoOverdose wrote: [quote=Kaarous Aldurald] Cormorants, Svipuls, Confessors, Caracals, Cerberii, Cynabals, Instalocking Lokis, Instalocking Gnosis, Vagabonds, Navy Omens, Exequror Navy Issues, Insta Canes, Faction fit Huggins, Faction Fit Rapier, and if they're at long range: Rail Tengus, Rail Eagles, Rail Proteus, Arty Lokis, Cerberii (again), Nagas, Beam Legions, Beam Zealots, Arty Munnin, Faction fit Huggins (again), Faction Fit Rapier (again). But no, let's just say interceptors are the only thing that can kill an interceptor forced to stay on grid. Get rekt. would like to see some eft fits/graphs of any of those tracking an interceptor at long range (150km or so) come on a corm sniping fleet :) and it will cure your doubts Look, even if you don't believe the rail boats (and the better arty and beam boats) can make intys squish at 100+ (and they do), the Cerberus can be fit to hit past 140km with RLML. I trust everyone here knows what RLML does to an inty?
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 602	Posted - 2015.03.09 18:01:03 - [405] - Quote Eli Apol wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: Eli Apol wrote: This is where living in your space helps. deklein is the most populous and densest region in eve with the best indexes so i am not sure where you are going with this Ofc those players living there also have to be willing to defend...not just dockup their ratting ships and ask their landlords for a blob to form. your lack of experience with goonswarm federation's SOP is showing
MASSADEATH MASS A DEATH Mordus Angels 63	Posted - 2015.03.09 18:01:10 - [406] - Quote Borachon wrote: MASSADEATH wrote: Its ok..... you can stage out of X-70 and become"NPC trash" as well :) Be careful what you wish for. If this happens, basically every ihub iun the game will die within a month, and no one will put up new ones. Anomaly ratting will, as a result, die. If I was GSF leadership (thankfully I'm not), I would keep sov in one consteallation of station systems for industry bonuses and move all combat pilots to NPC nullsec. 5zxx, X-70, and N5y are about to get very full, while almost all of sov 0.0 would be completely empty. And you think this is better? PLEASE NO>>>>>> NOT THE Anomaly ratting!!!!! what will we do? NO..not the IHUBS as well!!!! all of 0.0 is already empty...do you ever fly in your own area ?..DEKLIN IS EMPTY SPACE!! we have to jump 15+ jumps to even find you guys to get any targets...
Amyclas Amatin SUNDERING Goonswarm Federation 643	Posted - 2015.03.09 18:02:07 - [407] - Quote Deklein is empty space? Oh. 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?"
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 602	Posted - 2015.03.09 18:02:07 - [408] - Quote PotatoOverdose wrote: Look, even if you don't believe the rail boats (and the better arty and beam boats) can make intys squish at 100+ (and they do), the Cerberus can be fit to hit past 140km with RLML. I trust everyone here knows what RLML does to an inty? nothing as it effortlessly burns outside of that range due to dscan, warp deceleration, and crappy lock time on the smallest signature ship in the game
Eli Apol Pro Synergy 333	Posted - 2015.03.09 18:02:28 - [409] - Quote Promiscuous Female wrote: your lack of experience with goonswarm federation's SOP is showing I'm afraid it is, how long does a defence fleet take to form after the ping goes out? And now 100 simultaneous pings across the whole of CFC space? That sounds like a headache.
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 602	Posted - 2015.03.09 18:02:55 - [410] - Quote MASSADEATH wrote: all of 0.0 is already empty...do you ever fly in your own area ?..DEKLIN IS EMPTY SPACE!! we have to jump 15+ jumps to even find you guys to get any targets... no, you just camp the ya0 beacon and wait for stupid people the fact that this occasionally takes a while is not descriptive of nullsec as a whole

Gizznitt Malikite Agony Unleashed Agony Empire 4238	Posted - 2015.03.09 18:03:12 - [411] - Quote John McCreedy wrote: MASSADEATH wrote: Corey Lean wrote: MASSADEATH wrote: The whole point is to end the sprawling wasteland of empty SOV space.... and this should do it. If a 30,000 man alliance cant have a few people with entosis ships on the standby to stop SOV attacks on thier structures then they dont deserve that space No the point is about fights. Mr. Fozzie the the design goals and end-state of all these changes is to generate fights by controlling the grid through force of arms, not slippery petes or interceptors. So that should exclude the usual suspects from this conversation about sovereignty. so come out and fight...it will be YOUR choice to defend YOUR space or not..... maybe you will have to PvP instead of ratting 24/7? or perhaps you will be forced into 1-5 systems instead of who knows how many you guys "own" And i use the word "own" loosely as they are empty anyway. Forget the past...this is the new future....and it seems to be burning BRIGHT :) What CCP needs to do..is tie POS/moon goo to SOV as well.... so it breaks your ISK control over the game :) This is a misconception of the issue sov holders have with the proposed changes. My Alliance holds 51 systems of which half (26) have either a Station or an Outpost in them. These systems are held for a variety of reasons, be it jump bridges, moons, good ratting space or strategically important locations for potential wars. AU time zone is the quietest in Eve for the most part so let's say, for example, we have 80 people online during it. Late night Americans, a couple of good AU tz corps. Under the proposed changes, each structure - TCU, iHUB or Station - can be hacked using the new module. Because a single Interceptor can contest our sov, we need 26 people to cover the Outposts, 51 people on the TCUs and 51 people on the iHubs. That's a total of 128 people needed online to secure our sovereignty. That's a bare minimum based upon one ship with one module attacking the structure. We're 48 men short on being able to protect it. It isn't about choice. It isn't about whether we want to fight or hide in the station giving you blueballs, it's that under the proposed system, most alliances simply lack the man power available to protect their system. Because of the vulnerability window, this assumes the 80 people we have online are willing to do nothing in Eve ever but camp one of three structures night after night. How long before people bugger off and do something other than null sec? So the alliance ends up with no AU time zone so picks the next quietest one, for example, U.S. time zone. But 128 people in the U.S. time zone don't want to sit there night after night camping one of three structures so they all leave as well. And so on and so forth. The proposal is ultimately self defeating. You only have to defend the structure that is being attacked... A lone interceptor can only RF on structure at a time... A group of interceptors would simply require a similar group of defenders to respond. The main difference is that you can no longer wait hours for a more ideal formup and then attack with your full force, you have to act more quickly.
Ranger 1 Ranger Corp Vae. Victis. 6166	Posted - 2015.03.09 18:04:14 - [412] - Quote Promiscuous Female wrote: Ranger 1 wrote: Point being, your entire organization doesn't need to be trying to kill interceptors constantly, just devote the necessary number of ships to keep an Entosis point on your important stuff. If you can't do that, scale back a bit until you can. the fact that we can easily do exactly this is immaterial to the point The fact that your are complaining bitterly about the need to do this is very material to the point. Why would you care if others are unwilling to do so? That's not your problem. View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents.
Erasmus Grant EVE University Ivy League 20	Posted - 2015.03.09 18:04:26 - [413] - Quote Borachon wrote: The biggest concern with trollceptors seems to be the extreme long range on T2 entosis links. I understand wanting a long-range link for things like sniper doctrines, but I don't see why you're doing this with the T1/T2 distinction. Instead, why not have S/M/L/XL entosis links with ranges similar to S/M/L/XL long range weapons? The T1/T2 variants would then mostly impact cycle times. This gives you more room to use the module tools at your disposal to tweak usage. It does potentially complicate the loot table of drifter battleships, however. I do not think it is extreme if it is a supercap and would make a nice battle space. You would have a nice sub capital smash between them and the structure.
Amyclas Amatin SUNDERING Goonswarm Federation 643	Posted - 2015.03.09 18:04:40 - [414] - Quote Eli Apol wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: your lack of experience with goonswarm federation's SOP is showing I'm afraid it is, how long does a defence fleet take to form after the ping goes out? And now 100 simultaneous pings across the whole of CFC space? That sounds like a headache. Shhh, we don't discuss our secret pinging structures. Invade us please. There's no way we can respond. 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?"
Jhonny Napalm Blaster Diplomacy 0	Posted - 2015.03.09 18:05:04 - [415] - Quote There are so many things wrong with this whole thing. You've spent so much energy and resources to SIMPLIFY the game for a new generation of players but now you've jus gonet and shat on that with all this. Take two steps back and look at the board, take a few breaths This is so bloody complicated and messy...jesus...
Arrendis GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 312	Posted - 2015.03.09 18:05:09 - [416] - Quote Eli Apol wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: your lack of experience with goonswarm federation's SOP is showing I'm afraid it is, how long does a defence fleet take to form after the ping goes out? And now 100 simultaneous pings across the whole of CFC space? That sounds like a headache. After the pings? Depends on the time of day and what else is going on. Maybe 5-10m. Before the pings, though... Welcome to the JU- standing fleet and Theta Squad. There's always a fleet pre-formed. Sometimes, other fleets form up to run around chasing people, too.
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 602	Posted - 2015.03.09 18:05:29 - [417] - Quote Eli Apol wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: your lack of experience with goonswarm federation's SOP is showing I'm afraid it is, how long does a defence fleet take to form after the ping goes out? And now 100 simultaneous pings across the whole of CFC space? That sounds like a headache. nah, you'd switch to a proactive rather than reactive defense force in the case of fozziesov going in as currently described right now deklein home defense is limited to skirmish commanders who want to drive people out so they can rat in peace due to roaming gangs doing precisely bupkis to our space
Princess Cherista State War Academy Caldari State 30	Posted - 2015.03.09 18:07:01 - [418] - Quote Promiscuous Female wrote: PotatoOverdose wrote: Look, even if you don't believe the rail boats (and the better arty and beam boats) can make intys squish at 100+ (and they do), the Cerberus can be fit to hit past 140km with RLML. I trust everyone here knows what RLML does to an inty? nothing as it effortlessly burns outside of that range due to dscan, warp deceleration, and crappy lock time on the smallest signature ship in the game All these people saying the trollceptor is fine and easily counterable are working under the assumption that these guys are gonna sit there on grid and activate their sov laser. THATS NOT HOW IT WORKS The whole point of these coward tactics and no-commit fits is to zip around through bubbles (lol constellation control) and go where the enemy IS NOT. Then ref something. Wow no fight there. Generate dozens of timers and go to the one that nobody shows up to, wow another non-fight. See a pattern?
Ranger 1 Ranger Corp Vae. Victis. 6166	Posted - 2015.03.09 18:07:03 - [419] - Quote EvilweaselFinance wrote: Ranger 1 wrote: So.... your area of control shrinks to something manageable and the downside is that you get lots more good fights close to home with people you've likely never seen before? we don't get fights with enemies in interceptors, a ship designed so you never have to take a fight you might lose You do when you go to take someone elses sov... that is unless you really don't want good fights and prefer to use troll ceptors instead. But if you do that, you didn't want a good fight to begin with now, did you? 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 602	Posted - 2015.03.09 18:07:04 - [420] - Quote Ranger 1 wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: Ranger 1 wrote: Point being, your entire organization doesn't need to be trying to kill interceptors constantly, just devote the necessary number of ships to keep an Entosis point on your important stuff. If you can't do that, scale back a bit until you can. the fact that we can easily do exactly this is immaterial to the point The fact that your are complaining bitterly about the need to do this is very material to the point. Why would you care if others are unwilling to do so? That's not your problem. because if we can reduce the headache for us and make the system actually livable for people who are not us we achieve what we in the biz like to call "objective benefit" we can occasionally get what we want without it necessarily coming at the expense of everyone else, weird as it is to see written

PotatoOverdose Royal Black Watch Highlanders DARKNESS. 2632	Posted - 2015.03.09 18:07:12 - [421] - Quote Promiscuous Female wrote: PotatoOverdose wrote: Look, even if you don't believe the rail boats (and the better arty and beam boats) can make intys squish at 100+ (and they do), the Cerberus can be fit to hit past 140km with RLML. I trust everyone here knows what RLML does to an inty? nothing as it effortlessly burns outside of that range due to dscan, warp deceleration, and crappy lock time on the smallest signature ship in the game If it burns out of range, the entosis link deactivates, you win. Cerberus with 137km RLML Range (I lied it isn't 140, my bad lol): https://o.smium.org/new/5916218721826766848#modules,search Getting an inty to even lock past 137km is no small feat, but even THAT doesnt matter. Also, any decent rail boat (eagle, tengu, naga) will apply dps effectively well past that. The zomg-trollceptor crowd needs to stop being bad.
Eli Apol Pro Synergy 335	Posted - 2015.03.09 18:07:54 - [422] - Quote Arrendis wrote: Eli Apol wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: your lack of experience with goonswarm federation's SOP is showing I'm afraid it is, how long does a defence fleet take to form after the ping goes out? And now 100 simultaneous pings across the whole of CFC space? That sounds like a headache. After the pings? Depends on the time of day and what else is going on. Maybe 5-10m. Before the pings, though... Welcome to the JU- standing fleet and Theta Squad. There's always a fleet pre-formed. Sometimes, other fleets form up to run around chasing people, too. Yep 2 preformed fleets trying to chase multiple inty gangs around 3 regions sounds exactly like the problem that you're trying to frame as other people's issue. Unless of course you can ban these evil ceptors and just wait at a couple of convenient bubble camped gates. Now that'd be boringly easy to manage wouldn't it?
MASSADEATH MASS A DEATH Mordus Angels 64	Posted - 2015.03.09 18:08:12 - [423] - Quote Promiscuous Female wrote: Eli Apol wrote: This is where living in your space helps. deklein is the most populous and densest region in eve with the best indexes so i am not sure where you are going with this Deklin is a barren wasteland of empty useless space..where you could literally search for hours looking for targets outside of the main staging systems of the CFC and goons...and Deklin is the poster child for exactly what is wrong with the current SOV mechanics.
Torei Dutalis IceBox Inc. Lasers Are Magic 18	Posted - 2015.03.09 18:08:35 - [424] - Quote I think the main issue with the t2 link is the rather extreme range it has. 100km seems much more reasonable (and honestly 28km for the t1 makes more sense as that is the range of a heated point). A 100km engagement envelope is more than reasonable and puts any really "trolly" things into a range they should be easy to deal with. Of course this is all ignoring the fact that all it takes to counter any number of "troll" ships is one entosis link of your own. When you think about it, assuming the occupancy bonuses roll over from current ownership most important/lived in systems are going to have a level 5 military and level 5 strategic bonus which amounts to a 27.5 minute timer which is more than enough time to respond to a lone "troll" ship. Of course then there is the point that interceptors are not really the issue. There are plenty of ships that can be fit in a similar manner. 10mn mwd t3 destroyers come to mind. Interceptors do have the rather important distinction of being interdiction nullified, but any "super fast" ships have the potential to perform the same kind of shenanigans. All in all I do think a range reduction on the module is in order, but aside from that I think there is an extraordinarily large amount of doom and gloom is being thrown around. People who have been a part of FW will be familiar with somewhat similar plex mechanics. Of course you don't need to lock the beacon in FW, but holding the field is the name of the game.
Amyclas Amatin SUNDERING Goonswarm Federation 643	Posted - 2015.03.09 18:08:35 - [425] - Quote Promiscuous Female wrote: Ranger 1 wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: Ranger 1 wrote: Point being, your entire organization doesn't need to be trying to kill interceptors constantly, just devote the necessary number of ships to keep an Entosis point on your important stuff. If you can't do that, scale back a bit until you can. the fact that we can easily do exactly this is immaterial to the point The fact that your are complaining bitterly about the need to do this is very material to the point. Why would you care if others are unwilling to do so? That's not your problem. because if we can reduce the headache for us and make the system actually livable for people who are not us we achieve what we in the biz like to call "objective benefit" we can occasionally get what we want without it necessarily coming at the expense of everyone else, weird as it is to see written I suffer from withdrawal if I don't hear about suffering in EVE every day... 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?"
Ranger 1 Ranger Corp Vae. Victis. 6166	Posted - 2015.03.09 18:09:11 - [426] - Quote Promiscuous Female wrote: Ranger 1 wrote: So.... your area of control shrinks to something manageable and the downside is that you get lots more good fights close to home with people you've likely never seen before? For other folks they get the chance to make a stake and experience 0.0. Even if they can't hold their sov, they have fun and perhaps find an area where they DO manage to hang on and grow? I'm not really seeing a downside here... for anyone. interceptors don't generate fights, they run away why would you contest sov with anything but the cheapest, most maneuverable ships in the new system Because you want good fights? Go take Sov with a fleet if you want a fight. View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents.
Amyclas Amatin SUNDERING Goonswarm Federation 643	Posted - 2015.03.09 18:09:56 - [427] - Quote MASSADEATH wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: Eli Apol wrote: This is where living in your space helps. deklein is the most populous and densest region in eve with the best indexes so i am not sure where you are going with this Deklin is a barren wasteland of empty useless space..where you could literally search for hours looking for targets outside of the main staging systems of the CFC and goons...and Deklin is the poster child for exactly what is wrong with the current SOV mechanics. Yet Deklein is operating at full capacity. It doesn't get denser than that. 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?"
MASSADEATH MASS A DEATH Mordus Angels 64	Posted - 2015.03.09 18:11:11 - [428] - Quote Promiscuous Female wrote: MASSADEATH wrote: come on a corm sniping fleet :) and it will cure your doubts ah yes the cormorant with its staggering 80-100km range The PVE must be strong in you you can hit to 110km with the corms for insta pop damage...and I would think that the mighty goons/CFC can field a huge fleet of perhaps 10 of them to kill ceptors...no? Or is that beyond your PVP capabilities? You seemed ok fielding 20+ celestis all the time to damp out fights ..so a few corms or any of th eother anti frig meta ships should be easy no?
EvilweaselFinance BUTTECORP INC Goonswarm Federation 635	Posted - 2015.03.09 18:11:28 - [429] - Quote MASSADEATH wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: Eli Apol wrote: This is where living in your space helps. deklein is the most populous and densest region in eve with the best indexes so i am not sure where you are going with this Deklin is a barren wasteland of empty useless space..where you could literally search for hours looking for targets outside of the main staging systems of the CFC and goons...and Deklin is the poster child for exactly what is wrong with the current SOV mechanics. you do realize all of us can trivially check dotlan and see that deklein is massively more occupied than anywhere else
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 602	Posted - 2015.03.09 18:11:47 - [430] - Quote PotatoOverdose wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: PotatoOverdose wrote: Look, even if you don't believe the rail boats (and the better arty and beam boats) can make intys squish at 100+ (and they do), the Cerberus can be fit to hit past 140km with RLML. I trust everyone here knows what RLML does to an inty? nothing as it effortlessly burns outside of that range due to dscan, warp deceleration, and crappy lock time on the smallest signature ship in the game If it burns out of range, the entosis link deactivates, you win. Cerberus with 137km RLML Range (I lied it isn't 140, my bad lol): https://o.smium.org/new/5916218721826766848#modules,search Getting an inty to even lock past 137km is no small feat, but even THAT doesnt matter. Also, any decent rail boat (eagle, tengu, naga) will apply dps effectively well past that. The zomg-trollceptor crowd needs to stop being bad. uh you start moving the interceptor out of range if a caracal waddles onto grid, you don't just sit there and take it on the chin caracal RLML misl takes 12 seconds to hit the target, at which point the interceptor has burned an additional 60km on the caracal missiles don't hit if the target moves out of their effective range while the missiles are in flight the point of the trollceptor isn't to effortlessly cap any objective, it's to cause an immense, logarithmically increasing amount of work for defenders while shouldering zero risk it's mostly the risk part that is the issue, generating logarithmically increasing amounts of work is much less defensible considering the stated aims of the sov revamp to break up existing holdings the only rebuttal I have seen from the pro-trollceptor crowd is little (wrong) vignettes about how easy it is to stop one ship from capturing one objective, when the problem is that it can hit any objective it wants without risk

EvilweaselFinance BUTTECORP INC Goonswarm Federation 635	Posted - 2015.03.09 18:12:47 - [431] - Quote like seriously that deklein is, by far, the most inhabited and used region is an objective easily proven fact like that the sky is blue trying to argue anything else just makes you look like an idiot even to npc posters supporting trollceptors
Nolak Ataru KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 766	Posted - 2015.03.09 18:12:57 - [432] - Quote Eli Apol wrote: Yep 2 preformed fleets trying to chase multiple inty gangs around 3 regions sounds exactly like the problem that you're trying to frame as other people's issue. Unless of course you can ban these evil ceptors and just wait at a couple of convenient bubble camped gates. Now that'd be boringly easy to manage wouldn't it? How about you come to nullsec yourself and see how often we get fleets going for no greater reason than "It's monday, time to kill some stuff"? Forming an inty fleet is not the same as forming a supercap fleet.
SilentAsTheGrave Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective 67	Posted - 2015.03.09 18:12:58 - [433] - Quote MASSADEATH wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: Eli Apol wrote: This is where living in your space helps. deklein is the most populous and densest region in eve with the best indexes so i am not sure where you are going with this Deklin is a barren wasteland of empty useless space..where you could literally search for hours looking for targets outside of the main staging systems of the CFC and goons...and Deklin is the poster child for exactly what is wrong with the current SOV mechanics. And with the threat of losing systems the defending traffic will increase a lot. Or they will bleed systems. Thus, working as intended.
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 602	Posted - 2015.03.09 18:13:10 - [434] - Quote MASSADEATH wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: MASSADEATH wrote: come on a corm sniping fleet :) and it will cure your doubts ah yes the cormorant with its staggering 80-100km range The PVE must be strong in you you can hit to 110km with the corms for insta pop damage...and I would think that the mighty goons/CFC can field a huge fleet of perhaps 10 of them to kill ceptors...no? Or is that beyond your PVP capabilities? You seemed ok fielding 20+ celestis all the time to damp out fights ..so a few corms or any of th eother anti frig meta ships should be easy no? cormorants have to arrive on grid and lock tiny interceptors before they can apply damage whoops interceptors have dscan and see them coming from 14AU away
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 15432	Posted - 2015.03.09 18:13:32 - [435] - Quote MASSADEATH wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: Eli Apol wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: Eli Apol wrote: Because they can be countered by a T1 ewar frig that's even cheaper - so long as there's someone awake in local anyways. edit: Anyone noticed that goons have to blob the forums to try and win their arguments? you counter an interceptor at one capture node / sov structure and it just shrugs and goes to another one nothing warps faster than an interceptor so enjoy spewing logarithmically increasing numbers of evemannen to bore out a single interceptor I think you mean "Nothing warps faster than an interceptor using an entosis link that can't even start its warp for 2 minutes..." And the fallacy is revealed...because pretty much everything other than a freighter can do that. ah yes the situation where you use PSYCHIC POWERS to determine which system the interceptor plans on hitting before its entosis module cycles and allows it to exit system Thats easily solved it you only own 1 system :) perhaps thats what you will have to do, if goons are incapable of the task to monitor more than one :) 1 system that can at best support 10 ratters hosting 40,000 pilots. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
Eli Apol Pro Synergy 335	Posted - 2015.03.09 18:13:36 - [436] - Quote Promiscuous Female wrote: it's mostly the risk part that is the issue, generating logarithmically increasing amounts of work is much less defensible considering the stated aims of the sov revamp to break up existing holdings logarithmically increasing amounts of work for larger areas of space you need to defend? By Jove you've nearly got it.
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 602	Posted - 2015.03.09 18:16:19 - [437] - Quote Eli Apol wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: it's mostly the risk part that is the issue, generating logarithmically increasing amounts of work is much less defensible considering the stated aims of the sov revamp to break up existing holdings logarithmically increasing amounts of work for larger areas of space you need to defend? By Jove you've nearly got it. i'm plenty fine with this concept as long as the attacker is able to be caught and executed in a situation discounting serious pilot error interceptors do not fit this category, and the fact that they can generate this logarithmically increasing amount of work at a minimum of cost and risk bodes much more poorly for the rest of eve than it does for us
Amyclas Amatin SUNDERING Goonswarm Federation 644	Posted - 2015.03.09 18:16:48 - [438] - Quote baltec1 wrote: 1 system that can at best support 10 ratters hosting 40,000 pilots. I don't see what the other 120,000 of us are going to do if bat country's 40,000 pilots hog the anoms in the one system that we can manage to hold. 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?"
SilentAsTheGrave Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective 68	Posted - 2015.03.09 18:17:00 - [439] - Quote EvilweaselFinance wrote: MASSADEATH wrote: see we are a Guerrilla force... we strike and move....strike and move... we dont bash our heads into your 30,000 man alliance head on.... why would we? "we don't do pvp, because we always lose" Just because they enjoy the game differently than your F1 monkeys doesn't mean they are doing it wrong.
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 602	Posted - 2015.03.09 18:17:14 - [440] - Quote MASSADEATH wrote: Deklin is a barren wasteland of empty useless space..where you could literally search for hours looking for targets outside of the main staging systems of the CFC and goons...and Deklin is the poster child for exactly what is wrong with the current SOV mechanics. yeah sometimes you have to wait up to thirty minutes for a terrible membercorp to use the ya0 beacon

Arrendis GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 313	Posted - 2015.03.09 18:17:17 - [441] - Quote Eli Apol wrote: Yep 2 preformed fleets trying to chase multiple inty gangs around 3 regions sounds exactly like the problem that you're trying to frame as other people's issue. Unless of course you can ban these evil ceptors and just wait at a couple of convenient bubble camped gates. Now that'd be boringly easy to manage wouldn't it? No, that's just Deklein home defense.
Gospadin Bastard Children of Poinen 242	Posted - 2015.03.09 18:17:32 - [442] - Quote afkalt wrote: 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. That's actually a great idea. An icon in the overview for ships with active entosis links. Would be good if you had the option to add a UI override to make sure an otherwise not-visible ship shows up in the overview if they activate their link.
Eli Apol Pro Synergy 335	Posted - 2015.03.09 18:17:59 - [443] - Quote Promiscuous Female wrote: i'm plenty fine with this concept as long as the attacker is able to be caught and executed in a situation discounting serious pilot error interceptors do not fit this category, and the fact that they can generate this logarithmically increasing amount of work at a minimum of cost and risk bodes much more poorly for the rest of eve than it does for us An interceptor that CAN'T WARP OFF for 2 minutes - and that can be handed further penalties to sig radius, speed or MWD usage does fit that category. Also google logarithmic versus linear - I thought you understood the difference but alas maybe not.
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 602	Posted - 2015.03.09 18:18:07 - [444] - Quote SilentAsTheGrave wrote: EvilweaselFinance wrote: MASSADEATH wrote: see we are a Guerrilla force... we strike and move....strike and move... we dont bash our heads into your 30,000 man alliance head on.... why would we? "we don't do pvp, because we always lose" Just because they enjoy the game differently than your F1 monkeys doesn't mean they are doing it wrong. enjoying being camped into 5zxx by 15 chimeras long enough for them to jump clone back to empire is probably the weirdest fetish I have ever encountered in this crazy internet
MASSADEATH MASS A DEATH Mordus Angels 66	Posted - 2015.03.09 18:19:24 - [445] - Quote EvilweaselFinance wrote: MASSADEATH wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: Eli Apol wrote: This is where living in your space helps. deklein is the most populous and densest region in eve with the best indexes so i am not sure where you are going with this Deklin is a barren wasteland of empty useless space..where you could literally search for hours looking for targets outside of the main staging systems of the CFC and goons...and Deklin is the poster child for exactly what is wrong with the current SOV mechanics. you do realize all of us can trivially check dotlan and see that deklein is massively more occupied than anywhere else by occupied do you mean eyes in every system to warn the ratters that a gang is coming? so they can dock up? since almost every system now has a station in it? or by occupied do you mean that a fighting force is ready to respond to defend its sov? or a fighting force like "theta" that is ready to protect its ratters :) If you are so heavily "occupied" then it should be no problem defending your SOV space from a few "NPC TRASH" dwellers in frigates...
ADMlNlSTRATOR Hoover Inc. Pandemic Legion 35	Posted - 2015.03.09 18:20:19 - [446] - Quote Is it true that using a Entosis Link on a sovereignty structure will NOT display any notifications to the players of the alliance owning the structure unless they are in the system under attack? Because, if so, it would highly disengage players from defending their space rather than engage them to undock and go defend their space. Some big alliances will used their existing IT infrastructure to query the API for such events, but even so, this information will probably be 10 minus late, if even available to normal players (think FC, Directors, CEO only). While there is the question whether you want small scale sovereignty attacks to be dependable with or without FCs, in order to get more people engaged, the attack notifications should be instantaneous and to all players in the alliance owning the structure under attack.
MASSADEATH MASS A DEATH Mordus Angels 66	Posted - 2015.03.09 18:20:47 - [447] - Quote EvilweaselFinance wrote: like seriously that deklein is, by far, the most inhabited and used region is an objective easily proven fact like that the sky is blue trying to argue anything else just makes you look like an idiot even to npc posters supporting trollceptors should be no problem defending that space then with it being so occupied then..so problem solved for you..
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 602	Posted - 2015.03.09 18:20:50 - [448] - Quote Eli Apol wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: i'm plenty fine with this concept as long as the attacker is able to be caught and executed in a situation discounting serious pilot error interceptors do not fit this category, and the fact that they can generate this logarithmically increasing amount of work at a minimum of cost and risk bodes much more poorly for the rest of eve than it does for us An interceptor that CAN'T WARP OFF for 2 minutes - and that can be handed further penalties to sig radius, speed or MWD usage do fit that category. if the entosis module actually applied these maluses to the host ship then this conversation would be much different but post #1 does not promise any of these things actually happening, so barring another 2 hour interview where they announce these critical details we are forced to assume they are not coming
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 15433	Posted - 2015.03.09 18:20:54 - [449] - Quote Amyclas Amatin wrote: baltec1 wrote: 1 system that can at best support 10 ratters hosting 40,000 pilots. I don't see what the other 120,000 of us are going to do if bat country's 40,000 pilots hog the anoms in the one system that we can manage to hold. Warr taks up 5 systems just on his own... Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
Mara Villoso Long Jump. 107	Posted - 2015.03.09 18:21:18 - [450] - Quote Phoenix Jones wrote: Probably the simplest solution is ship restrictions. No interceptors (bubble immunity), no covops ship. Actually I would go as far as saying that the entosis link cannot be onlined if there is any type of cloaking device (covops or basic), on the ship. So no interceptors, nothing with a cloaking device. If you want to address the kiting ships, only allow the t2 version of the entosis device (the one at 250km), on battle cruisers and above. You remove bubble immune ships from beginning captures, remove troll cloaky campers from entosising a system without any help, and remove kiters by making the long range version bc and above. Yea you will have to put some restrictions on them unfortunately. The alternative is to make the 250 km version so haneously expensive that people wouldn't use it on a frigate or cruiser. You can't target while cloaked and you can't warp with entosis link active.

Killian Cormac Cormac Distribution 4	Posted - 2015.03.09 18:21:36 - [451] - Quote Promiscuous Female wrote: you just bring interceptors to contest the capture node pimples too Interceptors will be able to do nothing to prevent organized defenders from capturing their own nodes.
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 602	Posted - 2015.03.09 18:21:59 - [452] - Quote MASSADEATH wrote: EvilweaselFinance wrote: like seriously that deklein is, by far, the most inhabited and used region is an objective easily proven fact like that the sky is blue trying to argue anything else just makes you look like an idiot even to npc posters supporting trollceptors should be no problem defending that space then with it being so occupied then..so problem solved for you.. we can argue against a hilariously overpowered game feature while simultaneously being in the best position in the game to resist it
John McCreedy Eve Defence Force The Kadeshi 171	Posted - 2015.03.09 18:23:04 - [453] - Quote Gizznitt Malikite wrote: You only have to defend the structure that is being attacked... A lone interceptor can only RF on structure at a time... A group of interceptors would simply require a similar group of defenders to respond. The main difference is that you can no longer wait hours for a more ideal formup and then attack with your full force, you have to act more quickly. No you don't. You have to defend the entire lot because it takes two minutes to cycle the module which, if uninterrupted, presumably puts the structure in to reinforced mode (the blog is a bit unclear on this, it could use some clarification). So for example, let's say 3L3N has a Jump Bridge (I genuinely can't remember whether it does or not), it would be considered a strategically important system. Doubly so if it had an R64 or more there. The nearest station we can put a Jump Clone in is five jumps away. However, we have no idea how many are in local. Could be one ship, could be one hundred ships. You race over and if it's one ship, you can attempt to engage but the Interceptor is fit for speed so can easily keep out of your tackle or ECM or engagement range. You can go in a sniper but its sig radius and transversal are so high you haven't a hope in hell's chance of tracking it. All he has to do is keep this up for two minutes and your sov is now vulnerable. But the thing is, do you seriously think those out to cause mischief are going to stop at one system? It's easy for the majority of alliances to form up 51 Ceptors and attack 51 systems simultaneously which is why you need to guard them.
EvilweaselFinance BUTTECORP INC Goonswarm Federation 636	Posted - 2015.03.09 18:23:28 - [454] - Quote MASSADEATH wrote: by occupied do you mean eyes in every system to warn the ratters that a gang is coming? so they can dock up? since almost every system now has a station in it? yes, it's so occupied that we alert each other when you try to show up, then we dock up the easy prey and you flee before the actual fighting ships can show up or you don't and then you get ground into a fine paste while we laugh at you basically it's not deklein is unused, it's that we're much better at the game than you are
Iski Zuki DaSen Icarus Academy 9	Posted - 2015.03.09 18:23:44 - [455] - Quote E-Link can be fitted in : Ceptors frigates destroyers = NO Cruisers = Maybe Battlecruisers = YES YES HELL YES ( brings a reason for peeps to actually use them once again ) Batleships =yes Carriers= maybe Supers= NO NO NO HELL NO
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 602	Posted - 2015.03.09 18:23:45 - [456] - Quote Killian Cormac wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: you just bring interceptors to contest the capture node pimples too Interceptors will be able to do nothing to prevent organized defenders from capturing their own nodes. except generate so many more timers that the pure chaff makes targeting the actual point of defense impossible i'm fine with this chaff occurring due to a force of skilled but theoretically interdictable (read: not bubbles necessarily) folks coming around to **** up sov space i think interceptors being able to do it is grossly overpowered
MASSADEATH MASS A DEATH Mordus Angels 66	Posted - 2015.03.09 18:25:28 - [457] - Quote Promiscuous Female wrote: MASSADEATH wrote: Deklin is a barren wasteland of empty useless space..where you could literally search for hours looking for targets outside of the main staging systems of the CFC and goons...and Deklin is the poster child for exactly what is wrong with the current SOV mechanics. yeah sometimes you have to wait up to thirty minutes for a terrible membercorp to use the ya0 beacon perhaps you should have PvP guards on your beacons? Or weigh the risks on using them. perhaps you will have to have "SOV guards" on duty in your systems?
Leisha Miranen The Alabaster Albatross Eternal Pretorian Alliance 2	Posted - 2015.03.09 18:26:09 - [458] - Quote Iski Zuki DaSen wrote: E-Link can be fitted in : Ceptors frigates destroyers = NO Cruisers = Maybe Battlecruisers = YES YES HELL YES ( brings a reason for peeps to actually use them once again ) Batleships =yes Carriers= maybe Supers= NO NO NO HELL NO This plz
Amyclas Amatin SUNDERING Goonswarm Federation 645	Posted - 2015.03.09 18:26:34 - [459] - Quote EvilweaselFinance wrote: MASSADEATH wrote: by occupied do you mean eyes in every system to warn the ratters that a gang is coming? so they can dock up? since almost every system now has a station in it? yes, it's so occupied that we alert each other when you try to show up, then we dock up the easy prey and you flee before the actual fighting ships can show up or you don't and then you get ground into a fine paste while we laugh at you basically it's not deklein is unused, it's that we're much better at the game than you are Can't be so. Gevlon told them they were the chosen ones. 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?"
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 602	Posted - 2015.03.09 18:27:05 - [460] - Quote MASSADEATH wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: MASSADEATH wrote: Deklin is a barren wasteland of empty useless space..where you could literally search for hours looking for targets outside of the main staging systems of the CFC and goons...and Deklin is the poster child for exactly what is wrong with the current SOV mechanics. yeah sometimes you have to wait up to thirty minutes for a terrible membercorp to use the ya0 beacon perhaps you should have PvP guards on your beacons? Or weigh the risks on using them. perhaps you will have to have "SOV guards" on duty in your systems? holy nonsequitor batman i am talking about deklein density here, not your objectively wrong pvp opinions

SoulLess Zealot IceBox Inc. Lasers Are Magic 2	Posted - 2015.03.09 18:28:49 - [461] - Quote Amyclas Amatin wrote: Will Entosis links do anything to ship velocity? If they don't, even if you don't allow frigates to fit them, we will troll in orthruses or 10mn AB tactical destroyers. Again another farce as much as troll cepters. .. First off you can be countered with the exact same thing... This goes for any percived doomsday fit . Secondly whats the lock range on a tact destroyer? Ever hear of sentry drones or rapid light missles or medium railguns; point is i hear alot of whinning, and not much to support the case except "it will make my life harder and show people im not as good as i say i am" . Not that im directing my comment soley at the author of the quote just the oppinion of.
MASSADEATH MASS A DEATH Mordus Angels 66	Posted - 2015.03.09 18:28:51 - [462] - Quote Promiscuous Female wrote: SilentAsTheGrave wrote: EvilweaselFinance wrote: MASSADEATH wrote: see we are a Guerrilla force... we strike and move....strike and move... we dont bash our heads into your 30,000 man alliance head on.... why would we? "we don't do pvp, because we always lose" Just because they enjoy the game differently than your F1 monkeys doesn't mean they are doing it wrong. enjoying being camped into 5zxx by 15 chimeras long enough for them to jump clone back to empire is probably the weirdest fetish I have ever encountered in this crazy internet when you "hell camp" us...we just move...or take out another fleet and just leave you to sit and watch an empty station... here come the threats of "hell camp" number? 10 now maybe more? how many titans was it last time 12? camping us? perhaps if you took the same amount of effort to "hell camp" your OWN systems..you would have already divised a plan to defend your SOV :)
Ranger 1 Ranger Corp Vae. Victis. 6166	Posted - 2015.03.09 18:29:03 - [463] - Quote I'll quit yanking your chain now, because yes, you make it easy. However you posted this... Quote: because if we can reduce the headache for us and make the system actually livable for people who are not us we achieve what we in the biz like to call "objective benefit" we can occasionally get what we want without it necessarily coming at the expense of everyone else, weird as it is to see written I will be the first to state that on a very LARGE number of occasions Goons have spoken out against certain mechanics and proposed changes even with those changes might have benefited them (or at least hurt them less extensively than others) if they felt those changes would harm the game overall. And on those many, frequent, occasions I applaud you... often adding my personal support when you were being dismissed by most as merely trolling or seeking to feather your own nest. I'll also state that I'm not fond of how frequently cepters will be used to troll sov if left as things are now. I much prefer it require at least a little more commitment (not much though). Ceptor hunting is just an irritating way to spend time. However, the plus side of easily being able to take sov from someone if they can't put up at least a token resistance (one ship per contested unit) is huge... in fact, it is necessary. Finding the correct balance point is the tricky part. However, if you continue to pose your arguments as : We want good fights. Using ceptors doesn't generate good fights. Using ceptors against us won't work. If we take YOUR sov we'll use ceptors, because otherwise there would be a good fight... Then you'll continue to look silly and self serving. Other entities, large and small, are well able to defend sov assets from mass ceptor sperges... assuming they haven't bitten off more sov than they can hold. You have zero advantage in that department. I'm quite sure you can cover more territory than most anyone else, and you well deserve that... but don't try to convince folks that your ceptor spam will be a threat to anyone other than those that bite off more sov than they can cover. Your main threat to other peoples sov is your main combat fleet, as it should be. Ceptor spam is relatively meaningless for anyone but other large entities that over reach themselves. View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents.
Terra Chrall Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire 13	Posted - 2015.03.09 18:29:26 - [464] - Quote 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! These types of statements are so blown out of realistic proportions that they have little merit except in an extreme case. If I had 98 systems and 38 stations I would have about 10 interceptors spread around my area during my prime time, that could respond to attacks and determine if they were real. That is 40 man hours for an alliance with thousands of players. The initial cycle time is just how long it takes to start a capture. If you are active in the systems you occupy you will have 30-40 minutes to respond before you a loss. Plenty of time to get your own scout or ceptor there to pause the capture. If you argue that an enemy could bring in 200 ships to attack multiple systems, then you are talking about an invasion of 200 ships. Yes you will need to rally greater numbers and secure your space. That is what responding to a coordinated attack is about. Only difference from before is it was all blobbed into one system and now it can be spread all over. New tactics will be needed to new threats. FCs might be assigning 2-3 man teams to 1,2,3 systems as an anti-skirmish tactic. It will require more work on individual pilots and less F1 pressing. The result will be skilled numbers can beat larger unskilled numbers. Dominance over ones sov will spread beyond being able to defend a couple of systems at a time with vast numbers. Those numbers will need to be able to defend multiple systems simultaneously. The advantage to the defenders, is having 30 minutes to respond allows small gang style of clearing out a system and moving to the next when you are dealing with 1-2 attackers in a system. The advantage to the attacker is choosing what systems to target. Yes you will need to have enough numbers to counter an attack, but that is not new. I can imagine an anti-skirmish crew of 5-6 ships (designed to catch and destroy fast ships) moving through sov space quickly enough that they could destroy 10 solo attackers in 5 different systems before losing sov. Add in a couple solo stall ships that ran ahead and jammed, or link paused the attacker and the small gangs can be very powerful against this OMG trollceptor fleets ruined my life concept. Yes having to have several anti-skirmish gangs will create new doctrines in the short term. But once trollceptor fleets are a waste of time and money all the new tactics involving fleets come into play.
Amyclas Amatin SUNDERING Goonswarm Federation 645	Posted - 2015.03.09 18:29:53 - [465] - Quote Promiscuous Female wrote: MASSADEATH wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: MASSADEATH wrote: Deklin is a barren wasteland of empty useless space..where you could literally search for hours looking for targets outside of the main staging systems of the CFC and goons...and Deklin is the poster child for exactly what is wrong with the current SOV mechanics. yeah sometimes you have to wait up to thirty minutes for a terrible membercorp to use the ya0 beacon perhaps you should have PvP guards on your beacons? Or weigh the risks on using them. perhaps you will have to have "SOV guards" on duty in your systems? holy nonsequitor batman i am talking about deklein density here, not your objectively wrong pvp opinions They are pretty Guerrilla snowflakes that just want to role-play. 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?"
PotatoOverdose Royal Black Watch Highlanders DARKNESS. 2633	Posted - 2015.03.09 18:30:27 - [466] - Quote Promiscuous Female wrote: PotatoOverdose wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: PotatoOverdose wrote: Look, even if you don't believe the rail boats (and the better arty and beam boats) can make intys squish at 100+ (and they do), the Cerberus can be fit to hit past 140km with RLML. I trust everyone here knows what RLML does to an inty? nothing as it effortlessly burns outside of that range due to dscan, warp deceleration, and crappy lock time on the smallest signature ship in the game If it burns out of range, the entosis link deactivates, you win. Cerberus with 137km RLML Range (I lied it isn't 140, my bad lol): https://o.smium.org/new/5916218721826766848#modules,search Getting an inty to even lock past 137km is no small feat, but even THAT doesnt matter. Also, any decent rail boat (eagle, tengu, naga) will apply dps effectively well past that. The zomg-trollceptor crowd needs to stop being bad. uh you start moving the interceptor out of range if a caracal waddles onto grid, you don't just sit there and take it on the chin caracal RLML misl takes 12 seconds to hit the target, at which point the interceptor has burned an additional 60km on the caracal missiles don't hit if the target moves out of their effective range while the missiles are in flight the point of the trollceptor isn't to effortlessly cap any objective, it's to cause an immense, logarithmically increasing amount of work for defenders while shouldering zero risk it's mostly the risk part that is the issue, generating logarithmically increasing amounts of work is much less defensible considering the stated aims of the sov revamp to break up existing holdings the only rebuttal I have seen from the pro-trollceptor crowd is little (wrong) vignettes about how easy it is to stop one ship from capturing one objective, when the problem is that it can hit any objective it wants without risk Holy ** you're bad. I could link you a ship that owns interceptors up to 150km, and you'll still moan like a stuck pig. And you know what? I'm gonna do just that. Behold the mighty eagle: Eagle: http://imgur.com/KYZDvc5 Eagle vs. MWD Stiletto: http://imgur.com/v537Sv8 185 DPS at 120km 60 DPS at 150km. Uses thorium if you're wondering (don't be bad by using spike). If, by some miracle, the inty locks at 150km, it's fit is so bad that those 60dps will massacre it. Please. Stop. Being. Bad.**
MASSADEATH MASS A DEATH Mordus Angels 66	Posted - 2015.03.09 18:33:06 - [467] - Quote Promiscuous Female wrote: MASSADEATH wrote: EvilweaselFinance wrote: like seriously that deklein is, by far, the most inhabited and used region is an objective easily proven fact like that the sky is blue trying to argue anything else just makes you look like an idiot even to npc posters supporting trollceptors should be no problem defending that space then with it being so occupied then..so problem solved for you.. we can argue against a hilariously overpowered game feature while simultaneously being in the best position in the game to resist it OHHH so your really trying to HELP out smaller alliances..... ahhhhh now it makes sense Thank you very much for helping EVE....and our small alliance. We could barely go wrong by doing the exact opposite of whatever goons/CFC or any of the other large alliances want. When you hear them cry... you know you are doing the right thing.
EvilweaselFinance BUTTECORP INC Goonswarm Federation 636	Posted - 2015.03.09 18:34:49 - [468] - Quote MASSADEATH wrote: Thank you very much for helping EVE....and our small alliance. when we talk about alliances we generally mean alliances able to hold sov, not vanity alliances that can't hold sov that got kicked out of the cfc for being utterly worthless
Arrendis GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 313	Posted - 2015.03.09 18:35:20 - [469] - Quote SoulLess Zealot wrote: Secondly whats the lock range on a tact destroyer? Svipul can get out to 177km lock range in speed mode. In sniper, double it.
Carniflex StarHunt Mordus Angels 316	Posted - 2015.03.09 18:35:45 - [470] - Quote Andrea Keuvo wrote: Carniflex wrote: 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. I'm not opposed to a larger force having some advantage. What I'm opposed to is infecting sov war with Snip Please refrain from using profanity. ISD Ezwal. an ECM frig blob. The only thing worse than grinding millions of structure HP is spending an entire fight permajammed. Use FoF missiles in that case? Or drones on aggressive? fit ECCM? Combat probe and drop on them with smart-bombs? If you know there is 200 (or whatever the exact number is" "troll ECM ships" on grid fit to counter them? Bring Triage carriers as drone triggers? Set drones on "guard" on your wingman instead of assist? Although if a entity can bring a blob that cover the sun I can think of more scary things to field than few hundred ECM frigates. One of the goals of the presented change also is to force multiple smaller engagements instead of one do or die event forcing to bring the blob. Here, sanity... niiiice sanity, come to daddy... okay, that's a good sanity... THWONK! GOT the bastard.

Ranamar Valkyries of Night Of Sound Mind 86	Posted - 2015.03.09 18:35:54 - [471] - Quote This thread has mostly devolved into noise, so let me add to it! I think the things we really need to know are: What happens when a ship using an entosis link loses lock on the entosis target? Does the module keep cycling? You can't cancel the module early, right? You shouldn't be able to cancel it early. My gut feeling is that having fittings of somewhere between a small nos and a cyno will block out most of the really degenerate fits, but I haven't checked that at all carefully.
Corey Lean GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 74	Posted - 2015.03.09 18:36:10 - [472] - Quote MASSADEATH wrote: when you "hell camp" us...we just move... You dont have the luxury of moving. If you ever moved away from CFC lands your leader Gevlon Goblin would pull your funding. So if fact, we are not locked in the north with you, you are locked in here with us Nobody has any illusions about the defense of Deklein, it would be trivial no matter what systems they implement but that doesnt mean a ****** system shouldnt be called out. A year from now half the map would be unclaimed because no one wants to invest in areas that can be conquered by cowards in stinky petes.
Killian Cormac Cormac Distribution 4	Posted - 2015.03.09 18:36:35 - [473] - Quote Promiscuous Female wrote: Killian Cormac wrote: Interceptors will be able to do nothing to prevent organized defenders from capturing their own nodes. except generate so many more timers that the pure chaff makes targeting the actual point of defense impossible Command nodes won't generate additional timers, they are either captured or not. Organized defenders will be able to retain sov with trivial ease against a wave of attacking interceptors, since they will be able to capture nodes and the attackers will have to stay out of sensor-damped lock range or die.
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 15433	Posted - 2015.03.09 18:38:05 - [474] - Quote SoulLess Zealot wrote: Amyclas Amatin wrote: Will Entosis links do anything to ship velocity? If they don't, even if you don't allow frigates to fit them, we will troll in orthruses or 10mn AB tactical destroyers. Again another farce as much as troll cepters. .. First off you can be countered with the exact same thing... This goes for any percived doomsday fit . Secondly whats the lock range on a tact destroyer? Ever hear of sentry drones or rapid light missles or medium railguns; point is i hear alot of whinning, and not much to support the case except "it will make my life harder and show people im not as good as i say i am" . Not that im directing my comment soley at the author of the quote just the oppinion of. These counters only work if said intercepter/frig/destroyer sits still. The second you land these ships will burn away from you and out of your range often before you can even lock them. most of them will be off grid before you even land. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
SoulLess Zealot IceBox Inc. Lasers Are Magic 2	Posted - 2015.03.09 18:38:20 - [475] - Quote Arrendis wrote: SoulLess Zealot wrote: Secondly whats the lock range on a tact destroyer? Svipul can get out to 177km lock range in speed mode. In sniper, double it. Ok so this fit cant actually stop anyone from countering there entosis mod.. So wheres the problem undock an i ibis with one loaded and walla
Carniflex StarHunt Mordus Angels 316	Posted - 2015.03.09 18:39:00 - [476] - Quote Ann Markson wrote: While the Trolleceptor thing itself is a useless rage it adresses another issue. Currently the majority of Sov Null systems is worth ***. Alliances hold entire regions to have access to 10% of their systems in which people actually can rat at isk/h rates significantly above highsec levels. People are mad because noone wants to life or be in the -0.1 or -0.2 systems because it adds a lot of effort while not giving access to anything worth much more in terms of income abilitiy. So People hold large chunks of sov to use a very few parts of it now rage because the parts they dont use would be reinforced constantly, but are effectively not worth using at all, thus have no place in occupancy based Sov. If CCP wants occupancy based Sov to work the truesecs either need a rework, or the anomaly system does in a way that makes the majority of Sov systems worth holding, not the minority of them. One could argue that it doesnt has any place here, but with Sov being a very complex topic we need to adress each part of it simultaneously. Simple, if the particular system is not worth holding it for the current holder, he does not use it or live in it he should just let it go. Let some poor newbie entity try to set up in there and RF it daily just for lols. Sov has in the past been battle of will, before the supercap blobs turned dials to 11. And it seems it will be so again. Here, sanity... niiiice sanity, come to daddy... okay, that's a good sanity... THWONK!* GOT the bastard.
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 602	Posted - 2015.03.09 18:40:11 - [477] - Quote Ranger 1 wrote: However, if you continue to pose your arguments as : We want good fights. this is where you've lost the thread at no point is goonswarm federation interested in good fights defense of our empire comes first, subjugation of those who would even think of attacking our empire comes second, subjugation of everyone else comes third fights occasionally occur in the process of completing these two objectives but are completely tangential to our desires and goals
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 602	Posted - 2015.03.09 18:41:30 - [478] - Quote PotatoOverdose wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: PotatoOverdose wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: PotatoOverdose wrote: Look, even if you don't believe the rail boats (and the better arty and beam boats) can make intys squish at 100+ (and they do), the Cerberus can be fit to hit past 140km with RLML. I trust everyone here knows what RLML does to an inty? nothing as it effortlessly burns outside of that range due to dscan, warp deceleration, and crappy lock time on the smallest signature ship in the game If it burns out of range, the entosis link deactivates, you win. Cerberus with 137km RLML Range (I lied it isn't 140, my bad lol): https://o.smium.org/new/5916218721826766848#modules,search Getting an inty to even lock past 137km is no small feat, but even THAT doesnt matter. Also, any decent rail boat (eagle, tengu, naga) will apply dps effectively well past that. The zomg-trollceptor crowd needs to stop being bad. uh you start moving the interceptor out of range if a caracal waddles onto grid, you don't just sit there and take it on the chin caracal RLML misl takes 12 seconds to hit the target, at which point the interceptor has burned an additional 60km on the caracal missiles don't hit if the target moves out of their effective range while the missiles are in flight the point of the trollceptor isn't to effortlessly cap any objective, it's to cause an immense, logarithmically increasing amount of work for defenders while shouldering zero risk it's mostly the risk part that is the issue, generating logarithmically increasing amounts of work is much less defensible considering the stated aims of the sov revamp to break up existing holdings the only rebuttal I have seen from the pro-trollceptor crowd is little (wrong) vignettes about how easy it is to stop one ship from capturing one objective, when the problem is that it can hit any objective it wants without risk Holy ** you're bad. I could link you a ship that owns interceptors up to 150km, and you'll still moan like a stuck pig. And you know what? I'm gonna do just that. Behold the mighty eagle: Eagle: http://imgur.com/KYZDvc5 Eagle vs. MWD Stiletto: http://imgur.com/v537Sv8 185 DPS at 120km 60 DPS at 150km. Uses thorium if you're wondering (don't be bad by using spike). If, by some miracle, the inty locks at 150km, it's fit is so bad that those 60dps will massacre it. Please. Stop. Being. Bad.** ah yes the interceptor that is polite enough to sit inside the eagle's optimal long enough to arrive from 14AU away, decelerate from warp, lock, and fire on it
MASSADEATH MASS A DEATH Mordus Angels 67	Posted - 2015.03.09 18:41:35 - [479] - Quote EvilweaselFinance wrote: MASSADEATH wrote: Thank you very much for helping EVE....and our small alliance. when we talk about alliances we generally mean alliances able to hold sov, not vanity alliances that can't hold sov that got kicked out of the cfc for being utterly worthless ohh you mean hold SOV under the current blob mechanics too bad we are now talking about the new upcoming mechanics... perhaps you will be NPC trash as well.... that would be funny indeed :) MOA was kicked long ago.... I think all the PvErs are now with you guys :) the current group has nothing to do with the old one :)
Eli Apol Pro Synergy 336	Posted - 2015.03.09 18:41:50 - [480] - Quote Well who coulda guessed this thread was gonna turn into a CFC blob screaming 'trollceptors' ad nauseam and sticking their fingers in their ears?

Veskrashen Justified Chaos Spaceship Bebop 757	Posted - 2015.03.09 18:42:35 - [481] - Quote Promiscuous Female wrote: MASSADEATH wrote: come on a corm sniping fleet :) and it will cure your doubts ah yes the cormorant with its staggering 80-100km range Combat probes will land it in engagement range every time. 100km is plenty when you land within 50-70km of your target. We Gallente have a saying: "CCP created the Gallente Militia to train the Fighters..."
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 602	Posted - 2015.03.09 18:42:48 - [482] - Quote Killian Cormac wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: Killian Cormac wrote: Interceptors will be able to do nothing to prevent organized defenders from capturing their own nodes. except generate so many more timers that the pure chaff makes targeting the actual point of defense impossible Command nodes won't generate additional timers, they are either captured or not. Organized defenders will be able to retain sov with trivial ease against a wave of attacking interceptors, since they will be able to capture nodes and the attackers will have to stay out of sensor-damped lock range or die. you don't capture command nodes, you go to other systems and generate more initial RF timers while the defenders are busy whacking pimples
twit brent Black Anvil Industries SpaceMonkey's Alliance 27	Posted - 2015.03.09 18:44:06 - [483] - Quote I am not worried about evasion ceptors, i am worried about interceptors that will warp off and cloak when you respond. The last thing EVE needs is the meta pushed further into cloaky/nullffied ships.
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 602	Posted - 2015.03.09 18:44:18 - [484] - Quote Eli Apol wrote: Well who coulda guessed this thread was gonna turn into a CFC blob screaming 'trollceptors' ad nauseam and sticking their fingers in their ears? complaining about posting is usually the first sign that you've lost control of the conversation
MASSADEATH MASS A DEATH Mordus Angels 67	Posted - 2015.03.09 18:44:42 - [485] - Quote Corey Lean wrote: MASSADEATH wrote: when you "hell camp" us...we just move... You dont have the luxury of moving. If you ever moved away from CFC lands your leader Gevlon Goblin would pull your funding. So if fact, we are not locked in the north with you, you are locked in here with us Nobody has any illusions about the defense of Deklein, it would be trivial no matter what systems they implement but that doesnt mean a ****** system shouldnt be called out. A year from now half the map would be unclaimed because no one wants to invest in areas that can be conquered by cowards in stinky petes. Wow what a reversal..... your actually after us now.... cool.... it will save us the 15 jumps each day. Yeah because x-70, roir, saranen, and taisy ect ect are Soooo far away to base out of to kill CfC /goons
Carniflex StarHunt Mordus Angels 316	Posted - 2015.03.09 18:44:44 - [486] - Quote Querns wrote: Kaylee Fonza wrote: Arkon Olacar wrote: 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. If the interceptor is flying at 100-150km, 1 celestis can make is useless. The interceptor disengages, and uses its superior agility and warp speed to move to another capturable object. The celestis cannot keep up with an interceptor. The ability for an interceptor to be countered while sitting at one beacon was never in question. The interceptor's ability to disengage and travel with impunity is the issue. Minimum time 2 min for first cykle + 10 min - I think you are underestimating the celestis speed. I'm pretty sure celestis can cover healthy amount of space in ~10 minutes. Unless ofc inty runs into some other guys territory in which case it's no longer the celestis guy problem. Chase it 2-3 jumps and go back to ratting in your home system. Here, sanity... niiiice sanity, come to daddy... okay, that's a good sanity... THWONK! GOT the bastard.
Eli Apol Pro Synergy 336	Posted - 2015.03.09 18:44:50 - [487] - Quote Promiscuous Female wrote: you don't capture command nodes, you go to other systems and generate more initial RF timers while the defenders are busy whacking pimples And this doesn't affect the CFC 1000x more than a group with only one structure to defend?
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 602	Posted - 2015.03.09 18:45:15 - [488] - Quote Veskrashen wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: MASSADEATH wrote: come on a corm sniping fleet :) and it will cure your doubts ah yes the cormorant with its staggering 80-100km range Combat probes will land it in engagement range every time. 100km is plenty when you land within 50-70km of your target. combat probes show up on dscan the interceptor gets to disengage before you even start aligning for warp in your slow ass destroyers
Eli Apol Pro Synergy 336	Posted - 2015.03.09 18:45:49 - [489] - Quote Promiscuous Female wrote: complaining about posting is usually the first sign that you've lost control of the conversation Conversation? This is like a preschool tantrum!
Killian Cormac Cormac Distribution 4	Posted - 2015.03.09 18:45:50 - [490] - Quote Promiscuous Female wrote: you don't capture command nodes, you go to other systems and generate more initial RF timers while the defenders are busy whacking pimples Which spawn their own command nodes two days later, which is then undone in 30 minutes by 5 people.

Vincent Athena V.I.C.E. 3208	Posted - 2015.03.09 18:46:28 - [491] - Quote When thinking about "evasion fits" and how to counter them, consider how an attacker will use an evasion fit. 1) Warp on grid at 100 km 2) Activate Entosis link, while orbiting you maximum range (may be limited by targeting). 3) D-scan for incoming 4) When someone is incoming, burn off. 5) Keep going until your link finishes its cycle, then warp to the next target. As that is no more than 120 seconds, you only need stay out of range for that time. Unless the defenders have a ship that is 1000 m/sec faster than you, you will get away. If they do have such a ship, then copy it next time. CCP: Another thing to consider is the Entosis link range. What is the thinking behind 200 km? Maybe the ranges should be 10k for T1, and 20k for T2. Get those interceptors somewhere where they can be sniped before they burn out of range. Know a Frozen fan? Check this out Frozen fanfiction
Carniflex StarHunt Mordus Angels 316	Posted - 2015.03.09 18:47:20 - [492] - Quote Kaylee Fonza wrote: Querns wrote: Capqu wrote: if the grid is contested inteceptors are actually useless guys, their lockrange is so pathetic that one or two damps means there is no way they can keep their entosis link active i think the main issue around interceptors is their ability to move 100% safely behind camps and entosis uncontested systems which should be protected by camped choke points This is the core of the issue. As a sov haver of any size, I should be able to use the geography of my holdings in its defense. Being able to deny entry to my holdings should pay dividends in the security of my empire. Interceptors ignore all geography because, while traveling, they cannot be caught. Interceptors also have superlative disengagement ability, which converts the entire process of defending sov from defeating a gang of rabble-rousers to keepign a large group of counter-interceptors in a central location during your primetime, then dispatching them as blips pop up on the Sov Radar of choice. No actual PvP occurs in this scenario, it's just two interceptors weakly applying the sov laser to the same target in an attempt to bore each other into submission. Alternatively, I guess you could park a single supercap on every possible defensive target during your primetime. Thanks to fatigue, this is more viable than you'd think. Unless one of the interceptor brings damps, and wins the sov laser fight Interceptor needs its mids for sebos to be able lock at "troll" ranges. Here, sanity... niiiice sanity, come to daddy... okay, that's a good sanity... THWONK! GOT the bastard.
Captain H4rlock Hedion University Amarr Empire 0	Posted - 2015.03.09 18:47:24 - [493] - Quote Iski Zuki DaSen wrote: E-Link can be fitted in : Ceptors frigates destroyers = NO Cruisers = Maybe Battlecruisers = YES YES HELL YES ( brings a reason for peeps to actually use them once again ) Batleships =yes Carriers= maybe Supers= NO NO NO HELL NO +1
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 602	Posted - 2015.03.09 18:49:20 - [494] - Quote Killian Cormac wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: you don't capture command nodes, you go to other systems and generate more initial RF timers while the defenders are busy whacking pimples Which spawn their own command nodes two days later, which is then undone in 30 minutes by 5 people. so one uncatchable attacker should require five or more people to counter then eh
X Gallentius Justified Chaos Spaceship Bebop 2846	Posted - 2015.03.09 18:49:26 - [495] - Quote Takeshi Kumamato wrote: A lightweight method to discourage trollceptors: When the entosis link is active, prevent propulsion mods from cycling. The entosis link can be turned off at any time. The entosis link has a one minute reactivation timer. This makes it very frustrating to try to use the link unless you've gained control of the field, as you need to turn off the link every time you need to run away, get reps, or warp off. But every time the link turns off, you have to wait a minute before trying again. While this won't completely discourage the use of trollceptors, it doesn't interfere as much as other suggestions with the intended use of the links. Great idea. Potential Modification: Entosis link can be only be turned off at end of cycle - like a cyno except entosis link does not show up in local. Then there is a decent amount of risk involved, but no risk where nobody is in system. Entosis link module cycles in: 30 sec - somebody shows up in local, entosis dude has decent chance of bailing. 1 min - Somebody in system can pop him if the defender is on the ball. 2 min - Somebody within one jump can pop him if the defender is on the ball. 4 min - Somebody within 3 jumps can pop him. etc... JUSTK is recruiting.
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 602	Posted - 2015.03.09 18:50:09 - [496] - Quote Eli Apol wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: complaining about posting is usually the first sign that you've lost control of the conversation Conversation? This is like a preschool tantrum! You and your compatriots only have yourselves to blame.
Acuma Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic 0	Posted - 2015.03.09 18:50:22 - [497] - Quote Promiscuous Female wrote: Killian Cormac wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: you don't capture command nodes, you go to other systems and generate more initial RF timers while the defenders are busy whacking pimples Which spawn their own command nodes two days later, which is then undone in 30 minutes by 5 people. so one uncatchable attacker should require five or more people to counter then eh Or one ship to undock and warp to you so you get scared and run away when you see it 14au's away on d-scan......
PotatoOverdose Royal Black Watch Highlanders DARKNESS. 2634	Posted - 2015.03.09 18:50:23 - [498] - Quote Promiscuous Female wrote: PotatoOverdose wrote: Holy ** you're bad. I could link you a ship that owns interceptors up to 150km, and you'll still moan like a stuck pig. And you know what? I'm gonna do just that. Behold the mighty eagle: Eagle: http://imgur.com/KYZDvc5 Eagle vs. MWD Stiletto: http://imgur.com/v537Sv8 185 DPS at 120km 60 DPS at 150km. Uses thorium if you're wondering (don't be bad by using spike). If, by some miracle, the inty locks at 150km, it's fit is so bad that those 60dps will massacre it. Please. Stop. Being. Bad. ah yes the interceptor that is polite enough to sit inside the eagle's optimal long enough to arrive from 14AU away, decelerate from warp, lock, and fire on it Are you really that bad?** Read the graph again. http://imgur.com/v537Sv8 With thorium loaded, against a stiletto moving at speed it does 50 dps at 50km 185 dps at 120km 60 dps at 150km THIS KILLS YOUR 150 KM LOCKING INTERCEPTOR IN AN ENVELOPE FROM 50KM to 150km. WHILE IT'S MOVING. AT 5KM/S.
MASSADEATH MASS A DEATH Mordus Angels 67	Posted - 2015.03.09 18:51:05 - [499] - Quote Promiscuous Female wrote: Veskrashen wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: MASSADEATH wrote: come on a corm sniping fleet :) and it will cure your doubts ah yes the cormorant with its staggering 80-100km range Combat probes will land it in engagement range every time. 100km is plenty when you land within 50-70km of your target. combat probes show up on dscan the interceptor gets to disengage before you even start aligning for warp in your slow ass destroyers DO YOU GUYS EVEN PVP? are you telling me you are incapable of killing ceptors? you just alpha them off the grid.... lock target.... POP..... ceptor gone.... heck you even know the max range of where they have to be around a given structure...
Andrea Keuvo Science and Trade Institute Caldari State 315	Posted - 2015.03.09 18:51:06 - [500] - Quote Carniflex wrote: Ann Markson wrote: While the Trolleceptor thing itself is a useless rage it adresses another issue. Currently the majority of Sov Null systems is worth ****. Alliances hold entire regions to have access to 10% of their systems in which people actually can rat at isk/h rates significantly above highsec levels. People are mad because noone wants to life or be in the -0.1 or -0.2 systems because it adds a lot of effort while not giving access to anything worth much more in terms of income abilitiy. So People hold large chunks of sov to use a very few parts of it now rage because the parts they dont use would be reinforced constantly, but are effectively not worth using at all, thus have no place in occupancy based Sov. If CCP wants occupancy based Sov to work the truesecs either need a rework, or the anomaly system does in a way that makes the majority of Sov systems worth holding, not the minority of them. One could argue that it doesnt has any place here, but with Sov being a very complex topic we need to adress each part of it simultaneously. Simple, if the particular system is not worth holding it for the current holder, he does not use it or live in it he should just let it go. Let some poor newbie entity try to set up in there and RF it daily just for lols. Sov has in the past been battle of will, before the supercap blobs turned dials to 11. And it seems it will be so again. The bottom line is that if CCP is going to make it much easier for sov to be reinforced and for sov upgrade structures to be destroyed then it also needs to significantly buff the value of low end nullsec systems to make them worth the hassle or massively nerf hisec income so that the unbuffed sov null systems become more attractive/worthwhile to occupy.

Vaju Enki Secular Wisdom 1452	Posted - 2015.03.09 18:51:09 - [501] - Quote Just prevent Entosis Links from being fitted on frigates and cruisers or else I may overdose with nullbears tears... The Tears Must Flow
Ranger 1 Ranger Corp Vae. Victis. 6167	Posted - 2015.03.09 18:51:25 - [502] - Quote Promiscuous Female wrote: Ranger 1 wrote: However, if you continue to pose your arguments as : We want good fights. this is where you've lost the thread at no point is goonswarm federation interested in good fights defense of our empire comes first, subjugation of those who would even think of attacking our empire comes second, subjugation of everyone else comes third fights occasionally occur in the process of completing these two objectives but are completely tangential to our desires and goals That was pretty slick. Excellent avoidance of every relevant point in the post. Nice to know some things never change. 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 602	Posted - 2015.03.09 18:51:26 - [503] - Quote Acuma wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: Killian Cormac wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: you don't capture command nodes, you go to other systems and generate more initial RF timers while the defenders are busy whacking pimples Which spawn their own command nodes two days later, which is then undone in 30 minutes by 5 people. so one uncatchable attacker should require five or more people to counter then eh Or one ship to undock and warp to you so you get scared and run away when you see it 14au's away on d-scan...... and then proceed to another capture object and start over
Carniflex StarHunt Mordus Angels 316	Posted - 2015.03.09 18:52:02 - [504] - Quote DeadDuck wrote: Harkin Issier 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. Kiting trollceptors need LOTS of room to burn around in, putting them in the 100+km range. All you need to do to counter them is fit sensor damps. Congrats, your interceptor is now useless. "Step into my fleet's optimal range", said the Lachesis to the Crow. Hey what about if the troll ceptor comes with 3 or 4 normal ceptors along? What you think will happen to the maulus or whatever ? It's the question of agility also... a ceptor can be in 1 system and 5 minutes after can be at 10 jumps out doing the same thing again... to the same alliance... So its a problem that 1 ships cant take on 5 ships? By the same token what prevents me from "sov trolling" in falcon with covert cyno and bomber wing in jump range? Here, sanity... niiiice sanity, come to daddy... okay, that's a good sanity... THWONK! GOT the bastard.
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 602	Posted - 2015.03.09 18:52:11 - [505] - Quote Ranger 1 wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: Ranger 1 wrote: However, if you continue to pose your arguments as : We want good fights. this is where you've lost the thread at no point is goonswarm federation interested in good fights defense of our empire comes first, subjugation of those who would even think of attacking our empire comes second, subjugation of everyone else comes third fights occasionally occur in the process of completing these two objectives but are completely tangential to our desires and goals That was pretty slick. Excellent avoidance of every relevant point in the post. Nice to know some things never change. when i can topple the entire post by refuting its primary fulcrum with a minimum of effort i will usually choose that option
Veskrashen Justified Chaos Spaceship Bebop 757	Posted - 2015.03.09 18:52:17 - [506] - Quote Promiscuous Female wrote: Veskrashen wrote: Combat probes will land it in engagement range every time. 100km is plenty when you land within 50-70km of your target. combat probes show up on dscan the interceptor gets to disengage before you even start aligning for warp in your slow ass destroyers You're stuck for 2 minutes with the module active. More than enough time to land on the structure, probe you, warp to you from within 250km, and kill you. Trollceptors are not invulnerable, and are irrelevant to any entity that is willing to defend their space. They will never cap / RF a single node from anyone who doesn't totally suck. Period. The fact that you're trying to get them nerfed so hard so fast has a lot more to do with how much Gewns have been bawling about Interceptor bubble immunity since it was introduced to the game. It's simply more problematic for you all if it can impact sov as well. I notice that noone is whining about cloaking nullified T3s with even longer lock ranges, more DPS, more EHP, and self rep capability can use these same modules. We Gallente have a saying: "CCP created the Gallente Militia to train the Fighters..."
Eli Apol Pro Synergy 337	Posted - 2015.03.09 18:52:56 - [507] - Quote Promiscuous Female wrote: Eli Apol wrote: Conversation? This is like a preschool tantrum! You and your compatriots only have yourselves to blame. Nuh-uh, you! /rests my case.
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 602	Posted - 2015.03.09 18:53:05 - [508] - Quote Carniflex wrote: So its a problem that 1 ships cant take on 5 ships? By the same token what prevents me from "sov trolling" in falcon with covert cyno and bomber wing in jump range? interdictor bubbles
Killian Cormac Cormac Distribution 4	Posted - 2015.03.09 18:53:58 - [509] - Quote Promiscuous Female wrote: Killian Cormac wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: you don't capture command nodes, you go to other systems and generate more initial RF timers while the defenders are busy whacking pimples Which spawn their own command nodes two days later, which is then undone in 30 minutes by 5 people. so one uncatchable attacker should require five or more people to counter then eh Apples/oranges. A trollceptor isn't an 'attacker'.
PotatoOverdose Royal Black Watch Highlanders DARKNESS. 2634	Posted - 2015.03.09 18:54:22 - [510] - Quote As mentioned, the Eagle and the Cerb both annihilate Intys at extreme ranges. There were, however, some questions from the slower parts of the class on how a cerb would hit an inty moving at, say, 137km from a TCU. In order to help with that, I drew a picture. 2 Pictures, in fact. Enjoy. Pic 1 Pic 2

Acuma Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic 0	Posted - 2015.03.09 18:55:15 - [511] - Quote Promiscuous Female wrote: Acuma wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: Killian Cormac wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: you don't capture command nodes, you go to other systems and generate more initial RF timers while the defenders are busy whacking pimples Which spawn their own command nodes two days later, which is then undone in 30 minutes by 5 people. so one uncatchable attacker should require five or more people to counter then eh Or one ship to undock and warp to you so you get scared and run away when you see it 14au's away on d-scan...... and then proceed to another capture object and start over And if there's even one person in system you just play a game of jumping from gate to gate......if there's not even one person in system, why have sovereignty?
captain fovios November 17th Fidelas Constans 0	Posted - 2015.03.09 18:55:56 - [512] - Quote Iski Zuki DaSen wrote: E-Link can be fitted in : Ceptors frigates destroyers = NO Cruisers = Maybe Battlecruisers = YES YES HELL YES ( brings a reason for peeps to actually use them once again ) Batleships =yes Carriers= maybe Supers= NO NO NO HELL NO
Ranger 1 Ranger Corp Vae. Victis. 6167	Posted - 2015.03.09 18:56:11 - [513] - Quote Promiscuous Female wrote: Ranger 1 wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: Ranger 1 wrote: However, if you continue to pose your arguments as : We want good fights. this is where you've lost the thread at no point is goonswarm federation interested in good fights defense of our empire comes first, subjugation of those who would even think of attacking our empire comes second, subjugation of everyone else comes third fights occasionally occur in the process of completing these two objectives but are completely tangential to our desires and goals That was pretty slick. Excellent avoidance of every relevant point in the post. Nice to know some things never change. when i can topple the entire post by refuting its primary fulcrum with a minimum of effort i will usually choose that option Glad to hear it. Not that you did of course... as that was far from it's primary point. But you knew that already didn't you? A little secret... so does everyone else. 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 602	Posted - 2015.03.09 18:56:16 - [514] - Quote Veskrashen wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: Veskrashen wrote: Combat probes will land it in engagement range every time. 100km is plenty when you land within 50-70km of your target. combat probes show up on dscan the interceptor gets to disengage before you even start aligning for warp in your slow ass destroyers You're stuck for 2 minutes with the module active. More than enough time to land on the structure, probe you, warp to you from within 250km, and kill you. Trollceptors are not invulnerable, and are irrelevant to any entity that is willing to defend their space. They will never cap / RF a single node from anyone who doesn't totally suck. Period. The fact that you're trying to get them nerfed so hard so fast has a lot more to do with how much Gewns have been bawling about Interceptor bubble immunity since it was introduced to the game. It's simply more problematic for you all if it can impact sov as well. I notice that noone is whining about cloaking nullified T3s with even longer lock ranges, more DPS, more EHP, and self rep capability can use these same modules. an interceptor uses the time to burn off grid, and you aren't guaranteed to notice the interceptor immediately when its cycle renews; most often it will have <1m on its timer covert nullified strat cruisers are much slower than interceptors both in impulse speed and warp speed, and are actually possible to catch; i have fond memories of pulling two DG Invulns off of a covert nullified loki that I decloaked and caught in a gatecamp once (well, back when those were actually worth something)
Alavaria Fera GoonWaffe 6576	Posted - 2015.03.09 18:56:26 - [515] - Quote MASSADEATH wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: Veskrashen wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: MASSADEATH wrote: come on a corm sniping fleet :) and it will cure your doubts ah yes the cormorant with its staggering 80-100km range Combat probes will land it in engagement range every time. 100km is plenty when you land within 50-70km of your target. combat probes show up on dscan the interceptor gets to disengage before you even start aligning for warp in your slow ass destroyers DO YOU GUYS EVEN PVP? are you telling me you are incapable of killing ceptors? you just alpha them off the grid.... lock target.... POP..... ceptor gone.... heck you even know the max range of where they have to be around a given structure... Sheesh, why worry so much? You don't even have sov, rather, you get to be the one with the interceptors. Oh I see, you want things left as is so you get to use the interceptors. Clever use of the discussion ^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears. Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
PotatoOverdose Royal Black Watch Highlanders DARKNESS. 2634	Posted - 2015.03.09 18:57:03 - [516] - Quote MASSADEATH wrote: DO YOU GUYS EVEN PVP? Just ignore promiscuous, the guy's a troll. You can provide them a fit that will kill these "5km/s 150km-locking-trollceptors" in an envelope from 50km to 150km and they'll still go "LOLOLOLOLOL NO INTY INVINCIBLE TROLOLOLOLO."
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 603	Posted - 2015.03.09 18:57:23 - [517] - Quote PotatoOverdose wrote: As mentioned, the Eagle and the Cerb both annihilate Intys at extreme ranges. There were, however, some questions from the slower parts of the class on how a cerb would hit an inty moving at, say, 137km from a TCU. In order to help with that, I drew a picture. 2 Pictures, in fact. Enjoy. Pic 1 Pic 2 orbiting a target would be extremely stupid in a trollceptor, you want to sit at a point far away from any celestials and burn at an angle off grid
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 603	Posted - 2015.03.09 18:58:28 - [518] - Quote Ranger 1 wrote: Glad to hear it. Not that you did of course... as that was far from it's primary point. But you knew that already didn't you? A little secret... so does everyone else. nah, your post was "you want good fights yet you do all this crap that prevents you from getting them thus you are a hypocrite" when good fights are not really on our list of desires
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 15433	Posted - 2015.03.09 18:58:39 - [519] - Quote PotatoOverdose wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: PotatoOverdose wrote: Holy ** you're bad. I could link you a ship that owns interceptors up to 150km, and you'll still moan like a stuck pig. And you know what? I'm gonna do just that. Behold the mighty eagle: Eagle: http://imgur.com/KYZDvc5 Eagle vs. MWD Stiletto: http://imgur.com/v537Sv8 185 DPS at 120km 60 DPS at 150km. Uses thorium if you're wondering (don't be bad by using spike). If, by some miracle, the inty locks at 150km, it's fit is so bad that those 60dps will massacre it. Please. Stop. Being. Bad. ah yes the interceptor that is polite enough to sit inside the eagle's optimal long enough to arrive from 14AU away, decelerate from warp, lock, and fire on it Are you really that bad? Read the graph again. http://imgur.com/v537Sv8 With thorium loaded, against a stiletto moving at speed it does 50 dps at 50km 185 dps at 120km 60 dps at 150km THIS KILLS YOUR 150 KM LOCKING INTERCEPTOR IN AN ENVELOPE FROM 50KM to 150km. WHILE IT'S MOVING. AT 5KM/S. 60 dps isnt going to kill anything. These cepters are not going to sit there and let you pepper them with bb guns, they will eith be out of range when you land our out of range when you lock them. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship**
PotatoOverdose Royal Black Watch Highlanders DARKNESS. 2634	Posted - 2015.03.09 18:58:52 - [520] - Quote Promiscuous Female wrote: PotatoOverdose wrote: As mentioned, the Eagle and the Cerb both annihilate Intys at extreme ranges. There were, however, some questions from the slower parts of the class on how a cerb would hit an inty moving at, say, 137km from a TCU. In order to help with that, I drew a picture. 2 Pictures, in fact. Enjoy. Pic 1 Pic 2 orbiting a target would be extremely stupid in a trollceptor, you want to sit at a point far away from any celestials and burn at an angle off grid Remind me, how far does your inty lock?

Alavaria Fera GoonWaffe 6576	Posted - 2015.03.09 18:59:19 - [521] - Quote Promiscuous Female wrote: Ranger 1 wrote: Glad to hear it. Not that you did of course... as that was far from it's primary point. But you knew that already didn't you? A little secret... so does everyone else. nah, your post was "you want good fights yet you do all this crap that prevents you from getting them thus you are a hypocrite" when good fights are not really on our list of desires Remember the whole ncdot in fountain, only going where there's action, ie: backto grind their renter space after sovdrop? Yeahhh ^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears. Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 603	Posted - 2015.03.09 18:59:32 - [522] - Quote Acuma wrote: And if there's even one person in system you just play a game of jumping from gate to gate......if there's not even one person in system, why have sovereignty? you leave the system and abuse your best-in-class warp speed to get to another beacon
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 603	Posted - 2015.03.09 19:00:32 - [523] - Quote PotatoOverdose wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: PotatoOverdose wrote: As mentioned, the Eagle and the Cerb both annihilate Intys at extreme ranges. There were, however, some questions from the slower parts of the class on how a cerb would hit an inty moving at, say, 137km from a TCU. In order to help with that, I drew a picture. 2 Pictures, in fact. Enjoy. Pic 1 Pic 2 orbiting a target would be extremely stupid in a trollceptor, you want to sit at a point far away from any celestials and burn at an angle off grid Remind me, how far does your inty lock? your assumption is that i would want to stay on grid to try to capture the objective when an obvious anti-interceptor ship waddles into dscan range at that point the objective is already lost and the primary objective is to escape
Eli Apol Pro Synergy 337	Posted - 2015.03.09 19:01:39 - [524] - Quote Promiscuous Female wrote: your assumption is that i would want to stay on grid to try to capture the objective when an obvious anti-interceptor ship waddles into dscan range at that point the objective is already lost and the primary objective is to escape At which point the defender's objective of ... defending ...is complete 1-0 defence without even landing on grid.
Acuma Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic 0	Posted - 2015.03.09 19:01:58 - [525] - Quote Promiscuous Female wrote: Acuma wrote: And if there's even one person in system you just play a game of jumping from gate to gate......if there's not even one person in system, why have sovereignty? you leave the system and abuse your best-in-class warp speed to get to another beacon And if they are also in a inty? Pretty sure they warp just as fast. How far do you think an inty can travel in the 12-40 or so minutes it takes to RF a system?
Alp Khan GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 289	Posted - 2015.03.09 19:02:08 - [526] - Quote Elenahina wrote: Super Noodle wrote: Fozzie, can you please scrap this entire plan you've come up with to rework sov and start over from scratch. It's garbage. No, it's really not. There are some issues, but it's better than what we have now. Of course tunnelling out of Alcatraz with a plastic spoon would be better than what we have now. Why yes, Fozzie Sov is really garbage at this state. Even pre-Dominion sov with pos control is better than Fozzie Sov, and that should be telling.
PotatoOverdose Royal Black Watch Highlanders DARKNESS. 2634	Posted - 2015.03.09 19:02:31 - [527] - Quote baltec1 wrote: PotatoOverdose wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: PotatoOverdose wrote: Holy ** you're bad. I could link you a ship that owns interceptors up to 150km, and you'll still moan like a stuck pig. And you know what? I'm gonna do just that. Behold the mighty eagle: Eagle: http://imgur.com/KYZDvc5 Eagle vs. MWD Stiletto: http://imgur.com/v537Sv8 185 DPS at 120km 60 DPS at 150km. Uses thorium if you're wondering (don't be bad by using spike). If, by some miracle, the inty locks at 150km, it's fit is so bad that those 60dps will massacre it. Please. Stop. Being. Bad. ah yes the interceptor that is polite enough to sit inside the eagle's optimal long enough to arrive from 14AU away, decelerate from warp, lock, and fire on it Are you really that bad? Read the graph again. http://imgur.com/v537Sv8 With thorium loaded, against a stiletto moving at speed it does 50 dps at 50km 185 dps at 120km 60 dps at 150km THIS KILLS YOUR 150 KM LOCKING INTERCEPTOR IN AN ENVELOPE FROM 50KM to 150km. WHILE IT'S MOVING. AT 5KM/S. 60 dps isnt going to kill anything. These cepters are not going to sit there and pepper them with bb guns, they will eith be out of range when you land our out of range when you lock them. Jesus christ. An interceptor fit to lock AT 150 FRICKEN KILOMETERS DOES NOT HAVE A TANK. 60DPS will murder ** kill it, If the inty "only" locks at 90km the eagle will kill it with 170 dps. The Cerberus will kill it with 300-400 RLML dps (90km inty, 137km range missile, do the math). Baltec, even you aren't this dumb.
Proton Stars OREfull 67	Posted - 2015.03.09 19:02:32 - [528] - Quote Gevlon Goblin wrote: This argument over interceptors completely misses the problem with the proposed Entosis mechanic: The "trollceptor" isn't impossible to catch, it's unworthy to catch. People PvP for 4 reasons: Fat killmails. Entosis ships will be cheaper than a Retriever. Tears of the enemy. Entosis ships are sent out to die, no one will cry over them. "Kudos" for being good. An Entosis ship is a lone (very fast) sitting ducks orbiting a structure with a warning sign over it. It'll likely be AFK. To win. You'll never win. You can save/take the timer today, but as the enemy suffered no losses, he'll be back. Or someone else, like a drunken highsec miner in a 1 day old alt and takes your Sov if you let down your guard just once. So a player has zero reason to hunt them. The alliance has, so people will be red pen CTA-d/paplinked into Entosis fleets and will hate it. Living in Sov will be a forever grind of mandatory Entosis-frig hunting. While there were crying over the boredom of structure grind, you could at least hope for an escalation. No one will escalate a tackled frigate. In structure grind, you were at least in a fleet, half-AFK, chatting. In Entosis duty, you'll be all alone, orbiting a structure. If it will be introduced, everyone who considers EVE a game will leave nullsec. The obsessive-compulsive will orbit the structures with 32 accounts (likely with bots). so much sense. cant handle. wow
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 603	Posted - 2015.03.09 19:03:03 - [529] - Quote Eli Apol wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: your assumption is that i would want to stay on grid to try to capture the objective when an obvious anti-interceptor ship waddles into dscan range at that point the objective is already lost and the primary objective is to escape At which point the defender's objective of ... defending ...is complete 1-0 defence without even landing on grid. agreed, they have managed to defend that one objective in significantly less agile ships now the interceptor is RFing something else, better waddle out at 3 AU/s to the next beacon or bring a logarithmically increasing number of defenders to stop one person
Iudicium Vastus Incognito Holdings and Savings 320	Posted - 2015.03.09 19:03:08 - [530] - Quote Wow, people are too lazy to undock a maulus or two to damp out any 'trollceptor' into tighter engagement range and rather claim sky is falling. Or a griffin is fine too. [u]Nerf stabs/cloaks in FW?[/u] No, just.. -Fit more points -Fit faction points -Bring a friend or two with points (an alt is fine too)

PotatoOverdose Royal Black Watch Highlanders DARKNESS. 2634	Posted - 2015.03.09 19:03:29 - [531] - Quote Promiscuous Female wrote: PotatoOverdose wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: PotatoOverdose wrote: As mentioned, the Eagle and the Cerb both annihilate Intys at extreme ranges. There were, however, some questions from the slower parts of the class on how a cerb would hit an inty moving at, say, 137km from a TCU. In order to help with that, I drew a picture. 2 Pictures, in fact. Enjoy. Pic 1 Pic 2 orbiting a target would be extremely stupid in a trollceptor, you want to sit at a point far away from any celestials and burn at an angle off grid Remind me, how far does your inty lock? your assumption is that i would want to stay on grid to try to capture the objective when an obvious anti-interceptor ship waddles into dscan range at that point the objective is already lost and the primary objective is to escape So what you're saying is: Anyone that can be assed to defend their space will succeed. WELL DONE, FULL MARKS SHERLOCK.
Princess Cherista State War Academy Caldari State 30	Posted - 2015.03.09 19:03:57 - [532] - Quote Let only battleships and above have enough power grid for an entosis link. Wheres the risk and reward if you can fit a sov laser to a frigate? At least battleships would be used for something again.
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 603	Posted - 2015.03.09 19:04:08 - [533] - Quote Acuma wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: Acuma wrote: And if there's even one person in system you just play a game of jumping from gate to gate......if there's not even one person in system, why have sovereignty? you leave the system and abuse your best-in-class warp speed to get to another beacon And if they are also in a inty? Pretty sure they warp just as fast. How far do you think an inty can travel in the 12-40 or so minutes it takes to RF a system? have you ever tried to keep up with another interceptor if you don't know where it is going and they have a head start
Jaiimez Skor Hard Knocks Inc. Hard Knocks Citizens 121	Posted - 2015.03.09 19:04:43 - [534] - Quote Ilaister wrote: While brawling doctrines would be far from optimal I think the HIC will see a fair bit of use as an Entosis platform from smaller groups. Bubble up to hopefully catch reinforcements you're not getting reps anyway. TBH I think you're more likely to see brick tanked Damnations and Proteus' with 600k+ EHP (even after the HP nerf for T3's a proteus will get 600/700k ehp if brick tanked). As far as ways of fixing the concern of snaked out "trollceptors" then maybe as well as remote reps have a reduction to the effectiveness of propulsion mods, I disagree with disabling propulsion mods, but say a 60% reduction in the efficiency of propulsion module speed boosts should be plenty, so instead of doing 7km/s it'll only do about 4/4.5 which is easily cachable.
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 603	Posted - 2015.03.09 19:04:55 - [535] - Quote PotatoOverdose wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: PotatoOverdose wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: PotatoOverdose wrote: As mentioned, the Eagle and the Cerb both annihilate Intys at extreme ranges. There were, however, some questions from the slower parts of the class on how a cerb would hit an inty moving at, say, 137km from a TCU. In order to help with that, I drew a picture. 2 Pictures, in fact. Enjoy. Pic 1 Pic 2 orbiting a target would be extremely stupid in a trollceptor, you want to sit at a point far away from any celestials and burn at an angle off grid Remind me, how far does your inty lock? your assumption is that i would want to stay on grid to try to capture the objective when an obvious anti-interceptor ship waddles into dscan range at that point the objective is already lost and the primary objective is to escape So what you're saying is: Anyone that can be assed to defend their space will succeed. WELL DONE, FULL MARKS SHERLOCK. i hear that successfully defending one objective counts as defending the whole of your space when you have more than one system
Acuma Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic 0	Posted - 2015.03.09 19:05:08 - [536] - Quote Promiscuous Female wrote: Acuma wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: Acuma wrote: And if there's even one person in system you just play a game of jumping from gate to gate......if there's not even one person in system, why have sovereignty? you leave the system and abuse your best-in-class warp speed to get to another beacon And if they are also in a inty? Pretty sure they warp just as fast. How far do you think an inty can travel in the 12-40 or so minutes it takes to RF a system? have you ever tried to keep up with another interceptor if you don't know where it is going and they have a head start Answering with a question? How far do you think an inty can travel in the 12-40 or so minutes it takes to RF a system? Cause they will know when you start to RF it........
Carniflex StarHunt Mordus Angels 316	Posted - 2015.03.09 19:05:22 - [537] - Quote Arkon Olacar wrote: Maximus Andendare wrote: Arkon Olacar wrote: 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! I think you're missing the point. (Not just you, but you stated your (major Sov holder's) point eloquently enough.) If it's a bother to defend your sovereignty, then 1) maybe you should question the amount you possess and 2) if you're not willing to put forth the effort to defend it, then perhaps it should be lost. I'm not speaking specifically to the trollceptor "ruckus" per se; it's more addressing the complaints that defending sovereignty will be too difficult. Sovereignty shouldn't so easy to defend that you can do it with a corp full of dis-interested recruits. If you want to keep sov, then it should be something that you and your corp want to defend. As it is, CCP is giving Sov holders the ability to lock out people from reinforcing their structures until a time set by the owner. If the owner can't find it in them to defend their home in a nice four hour block of their choosing, then it sounds more like the sov holder should reassess their priorities. Bolded the important part. You've hit the nail on the head here. These mechanics cause too much grief for the defender to be worth the benefits of holding sov. The end result will be people moving out of sov null, with sov holders largely staging and living out of nearby NPC nullsec or lowsec, holding regions as a form of content generation rather than actually living there. These mechanics as currently proposed would kill off nullsec, not revitalise it. If you cant hold sov then someone else who can will. NPC null is not probably the heaven you are looking for as it's in essence a low sec with bubbles and without the recent low sec boosts (special spawns, etc). However, living in there will make you good (better?) at pvp quite likely. At least compared to pressing F1 and orbiting anchor like in current "traditional" sov meta. Here, sanity... niiiice sanity, come to daddy... okay, that's a good sanity... THWONK! GOT the bastard.
Princess Cherista State War Academy Caldari State 30	Posted - 2015.03.09 19:05:32 - [538] - Quote PotatoOverdose wrote: Anyone that can be assed to defend their space will succeed. WELL DONE, FULL MARKS SHERLOCK. But who wants to chase interceptors around for 4 hours a night or whatever the primetime is for no fight and no kills. Do you??
Eli Apol Pro Synergy 337	Posted - 2015.03.09 19:05:48 - [539] - Quote Promiscuous Female wrote: Eli Apol wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: your assumption is that i would want to stay on grid to try to capture the objective when an obvious anti-interceptor ship waddles into dscan range at that point the objective is already lost and the primary objective is to escape At which point the defender's objective of ... defending ...is complete 1-0 defence without even landing on grid. agreed, they have managed to defend that one objective in significantly less agile ships now the interceptor is RFing something else, better waddle out at 3 AU/s to the next beacon or bring a logarithmically increasing number of defenders to stop one person Nope, just go back to ratting, let the local defenders in the new location deal with this minor pest. It's like a wasp at a picnic, do you have one guy running around flapping at it shooing it away from all the diners or does each diner look after their own personal space and periodically raise a lazy hand to waft it away to its next place of rest?
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 603	Posted - 2015.03.09 19:06:03 - [540] - Quote Jaiimez Skor wrote: Ilaister wrote: While brawling doctrines would be far from optimal I think the HIC will see a fair bit of use as an Entosis platform from smaller groups. Bubble up to hopefully catch reinforcements you're not getting reps anyway. TBH I think you're more likely to see brick tanked Damnations and Proteus' with 600k+ EHP (even after the HP nerf for T3's a proteus will get 600/700k ehp if brick tanked). As far as ways of fixing the concern of snaked out "trollceptors" then maybe as well as remote reps have a reduction to the effectiveness of propulsion mods, I disagree with disabling propulsion mods, but say a 60% reduction in the efficiency of propulsion module speed boosts should be plenty, so instead of doing 7km/s it'll only do about 4/4.5 which is easily cachable. this is one of many options that would discourage the use of interceptors as the primary vehicle for contesting sov however since ccp refuses to commit to any one of these, we are forced to assume that they aren't coming

Andrea Keuvo Science and Trade Institute Caldari State 315	Posted - 2015.03.09 19:06:42 - [541] - Quote Eli Apol wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: your assumption is that i would want to stay on grid to try to capture the objective when an obvious anti-interceptor ship waddles into dscan range at that point the objective is already lost and the primary objective is to escape At which point the defender's objective of ... defending ...is complete 1-0 defence without even landing on grid. The inty has now moved on and is RFing another structure. You can, of course, go chase him off again, over and over, for the next four hours. Does this sound fun to you? How many days will you do this before you just stop logging in?
PotatoOverdose Royal Black Watch Highlanders DARKNESS. 2634	Posted - 2015.03.09 19:07:26 - [542] - Quote Promiscuous Female wrote: PotatoOverdose wrote: Anyone that can be assed to defend their space will succeed. WELL DONE, FULL MARKS SHERLOCK. i hear that successfully defending one objective counts as defending the whole of your space when you have more than one system Yes, god forbid an alliance of hundreds, or thousands, or even gasp tens of thousands of players has to put more than 1 cerb/eagle/cormorant/ANYTHING in a constellation. The trollceptor only wins if it is unopposed. Anything that is unopposed SHOULD win because gasp NO ONE IS OPPOSING IT.
Alavaria Fera GoonWaffe 6576	Posted - 2015.03.09 19:07:49 - [543] - Quote Promiscuous Female wrote: Jaiimez Skor wrote: Ilaister wrote: While brawling doctrines would be far from optimal I think the HIC will see a fair bit of use as an Entosis platform from smaller groups. Bubble up to hopefully catch reinforcements you're not getting reps anyway. TBH I think you're more likely to see brick tanked Damnations and Proteus' with 600k+ EHP (even after the HP nerf for T3's a proteus will get 600/700k ehp if brick tanked). As far as ways of fixing the concern of snaked out "trollceptors" then maybe as well as remote reps have a reduction to the effectiveness of propulsion mods, I disagree with disabling propulsion mods, but say a 60% reduction in the efficiency of propulsion module speed boosts should be plenty, so instead of doing 7km/s it'll only do about 4/4.5 which is easily cachable. this is one of many options that would discourage the use of interceptors as the primary vehicle for contesting sov however since ccp refuses to commit to any one of these, we are forced to assume that they aren't coming So... this thread has no point but to lightning rod from the other thread that' nearing 200pages? ^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears. Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
Eli Apol Pro Synergy 337	Posted - 2015.03.09 19:07:52 - [544] - Quote Promiscuous Female wrote: this is one of many options that would discourage the use of interceptors as the primary vehicle for contesting sov however since ccp refuses to commit to any one of these, we are forced to assume that they aren't coming You know how they made a thread to discuss the mod...and have 3 months to make a decision on any changes to it...yeah that.
Tabyll Altol Breaking.Bad Circle-Of-Two 79	Posted - 2015.03.09 19:08:13 - [545] - 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 I Would propose to "nerf" the t2 range form 250 km down to 30-50 km. And for the timer it should be necessary to let the link run the whole timer on the node.
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 605	Posted - 2015.03.09 19:08:14 - [546] - Quote Eli Apol wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: Eli Apol wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: your assumption is that i would want to stay on grid to try to capture the objective when an obvious anti-interceptor ship waddles into dscan range at that point the objective is already lost and the primary objective is to escape At which point the defender's objective of ... defending ...is complete 1-0 defence without even landing on grid. agreed, they have managed to defend that one objective in significantly less agile ships now the interceptor is RFing something else, better waddle out at 3 AU/s to the next beacon or bring a logarithmically increasing number of defenders to stop one person Nope, just go back to ratting, let the local defenders in the new location deal with this minor pest. It's like a wasp at a picnic, do you have one guy running around flapping at it shooing it away from all the diners or does each diner look after their own personal space and periodically raise a lazy hand to waft it away to its next place of rest? here comes that "you must bring a logarithmically increasing number of dudes to counter the efforts of one person in a throwaway, yet uncatchable ship" thing again
Acuma Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic 0	Posted - 2015.03.09 19:09:11 - [547] - Quote Promiscuous Female wrote: Eli Apol wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: Eli Apol wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: your assumption is that i would want to stay on grid to try to capture the objective when an obvious anti-interceptor ship waddles into dscan range at that point the objective is already lost and the primary objective is to escape At which point the defender's objective of ... defending ...is complete 1-0 defence without even landing on grid. agreed, they have managed to defend that one objective in significantly less agile ships now the interceptor is RFing something else, better waddle out at 3 AU/s to the next beacon or bring a logarithmically increasing number of defenders to stop one person Nope, just go back to ratting, let the local defenders in the new location deal with this minor pest. It's like a wasp at a picnic, do you have one guy running around flapping at it shooing it away from all the diners or does each diner look after their own personal space and periodically raise a lazy hand to waft it away to its next place of rest? here comes that "you must bring a logarithmically increasing number of dudes to counter the efforts of one person in a throwaway, yet uncatchable ship" thing again Except you don't......you only need one inty with the link to counter your's.
Masao Kurata Z List 190	Posted - 2015.03.09 19:09:12 - [548] - Quote If the T2 link's price was increased to 200M ISK, how many hours per day would you be happy to spend killing and looting "trollceptors"?
Gizznitt Malikite Agony Unleashed Agony Empire 4240	Posted - 2015.03.09 19:09:23 - [549] - Quote John McCreedy wrote: Gizznitt Malikite wrote: You only have to defend the structure that is being attacked... A lone interceptor can only RF on structure at a time... A group of interceptors would simply require a similar group of defenders to respond. The main difference is that you can no longer wait hours for a more ideal formup and then attack with your full force, you have to act more quickly. No you don't. You have to defend the entire lot because it takes two minutes to cycle the module which, if uninterrupted, presumably puts the structure in to reinforced mode (the blog is a bit unclear on this, it could use some clarification). So for example, let's say 3L3N has a Jump Bridge (I genuinely can't remember whether it does or not), it would be considered a strategically important system. Doubly so if it had an R64 or more there. http://content.eveonline.com/www/newssystem/media/66967/1/entosislinksimple_(1).jpg If the enemy stops using the entosis link on the structure, the capture/RF processes is paused. They must keep the entosis link on for the first cycle + 10-30 minutes (depending on system sov indexes). John McCreedy wrote: The nearest station we can put a Jump Clone in is five jumps away. However, we have no idea how many are in local. Could be one ship, could be one hundred ships. You race over and if it's one ship, you can attempt to engage but the Interceptor is fit for speed so can easily keep out of your tackle or ECM or engagement range. You can go in a sniper but its sig radius is so low and transversal are so high you haven't a hope in hell's chance of tracking it. All he has to do is keep this up for two minutes and your sov is now vulnerable. It takes two minutes to start the RF cycle. Then it takes another 10-30 minutes to complete the RF process, which you can pause by activating your own entosis module on the structure. If it is a lone ship, it is super easy to counter. If it is more, you still have 10-30 minutes to get intel, form up, and save the structure, with the ability to send your own super-speedy inty to pause the process while your allies form up and head on over. John McCreedy wrote: But the thing is, do you seriously think those out to cause mischief are going to stop at one system? It's easy for the majority of alliances to form up 51 Ceptors and attack 51 systems simultaneously and this is considered balance? You can fit for speed and attack them and you might kill them but they could cyno in a mate in a cloaky hauler full of interceptor hulls and fits, park it at a safe spot with a mobile fitting thingy and fit up a new captor and go at it again. Even if they don't, even if you successfully kill ship and pod, there's still 50 other systems to worry about. Manpower becomes an issue because then there's escalation across all systems. They bring two, you bring two, so they bring three but you're a small alliance so haven't enough people online. The system we have right now, for all its faults, is unlikely to result in multiple systems attacked simultaneously. Smaller alliances are at a disadvantage as much as they are right now so it screws over everyone. It's this that's one of the big issues with the proposed changes. If you are being attacked by 50 people, then you should probably attempt to defend with 50 people.... if you can't, then your **** will be reinforced, giving you 48 hours to get together a CTA and truly defend the structure. If you're being attacked by an overwhelming force, then you lose the system. Smaller alliances will always be at a disadvantage, and nothing ccp implements will change that. The difference between this new system and the current system is you can actually initiate an attack and put the big guy's sov structures in danger. In the current system, they have to be really, really ambivalent before a small entity can have any impact on the sov of some huge coalition.
Koshka narkotikov GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 2	Posted - 2015.03.09 19:09:56 - [550] - Quote Not allowing interdiction nullified ships to hack the structures seems like an easy way to prevent this from getting too silly.

Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 605	Posted - 2015.03.09 19:10:18 - [551] - Quote PotatoOverdose wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: PotatoOverdose wrote: Anyone that can be assed to defend their space will succeed. WELL DONE, FULL MARKS SHERLOCK. i hear that successfully defending one objective counts as defending the whole of your space when you have more than one system Yes, god forbid an alliance of hundreds, or thousands, or even gasp tens of thousands of players has to put more than 1 cerb/eagle/cormorant/ANYTHING in a constellation. The trollceptor only wins if it is unopposed. Anything that is unopposed SHOULD win because gasp NO ONE IS OPPOSING IT. um constellations have at minimum five systems, and with three objectives each that is fifteen dudes to counter one dude and the interceptor is not hardlocked into defending that system if you had to actually risk something to necessitate this response I'd have no issues with it
Carniflex StarHunt Mordus Angels 316	Posted - 2015.03.09 19:10:55 - [552] - Quote Groperson wrote: Kinis Deren wrote: The Mittani wrote: Though it may come as a surprise to some, I'm a big fan of the new system, with some tweaks around the edges - tweak the links a little and I'm happy with them. Here are some options I'd be in favor of w/r/t Entosis Links . None of these ideas are mine - they come from Xttz, Progodlegend, or are otherwise ubiquitous across the community. Interdiction Nullifiers could interfere with the activation of an Entosis Link - T3s would need to refit a different subsystem once at a target via a moble depot, and the mods would not work at all with interceptors. Once activated, the Entosis Link could disable any fitted propulsion mod, like siege/triage currently. Progodlegend's idea - we could limit the link module to cruiser class hulls and above via cpu/pg. I'd be happy with any/all of the above three tweaks. Cheers! Nope. We'd end up with a "bubble border" around every coalition to stop anyone from threatening the current sov null paradigm. Allowing inties and T3's to fit and use the Entosis module prevents bubble spam being an effective strategy in nullifying the proposed sov mechanics. Play the game and defend your systems then you won't have any issues coping with lone interceptors. The thing is, if you allow interceptors to attack sov. What do you risk as the attacker? Even in the most well defended region of space: deklein, you can just zoom interceptor gangs through with no risk because they are uncatchable. That' bubble spam' that you encounter is called 'the residents defending their space' You are advocating that even if residents defend their space, they will never be able to catch the people who are attacking it. That is broken, you risk nothing for attack and yet force the defenders to form a response and if it is insufficiently quick, do 10x the amount of work than the attackers. If you want to play at the sov game then you should have to risk something, if you allow entosis links on interceptors, the attacker risks nothing. Whilst the defender has everything at risk. Interceptor that cant warp for minimum 2 minutes after pressing the sov laser button is anything but "risk-free". Figure out from where are the bastards usually warping in, park a rapier or lachesis somewhere nearby and farm them. every second one drops ~80 mil isk module apparently. Here, sanity... niiiice sanity, come to daddy... okay, that's a good sanity... THWONK! GOT the bastard.
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 605	Posted - 2015.03.09 19:11:38 - [553] - Quote Acuma wrote: Except you don't......you only need one inty with the link to counter your's. except that the defending ceptor has to also root himself at the beacon for 2 minutes while the attacker's link falls off, giving him a headstart to the next beacon
Alp Khan GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 289	Posted - 2015.03.09 19:11:52 - [554] - Quote Eli Apol wrote: edit: Anyone noticed that goons have to blob the forums to try and win their arguments? We don't blob a thread really, actually Goons in general don't even enjoy reading and posting on Eve Online forums much, but Fozzie Sov is so ridiculously out of touch and premature that we feel compelled to do so. Morever, if there is a truth that needs to be acknowledged, it's that I'm really enjoying to read the opinions of a high-sec salvager about the sovereign null. It's really amusing. Now, if you of course had a prior regular experience of getting out of your Noctis in empire every once in a while, and instead have taken your time to live in sovereign null for an extended period, you would have known that Goons (and by extension CFC) is probably the only major null power that actually use their own sovereign null space. But please, don't be a stranger. Continue to share your opinion on a type of space you have no prior experience with. Even serious forum posters need a break sometimes, and your posts really help during those breaks. Thank you!
Eli Apol Pro Synergy 337	Posted - 2015.03.09 19:12:29 - [555] - Quote Promiscuous Female wrote: here comes that "you must bring a logarithmically increasing number of dudes to counter the efforts of one person in a throwaway, yet uncatchable ship" thing again Answer me this please Einstein: If logarithmically increasing numbers are required for more sov space held, does this affect a small alliance more or less than a large alliance? Alp Khan wrote: We don't blob really, but if there is a truth that needs to be acknowledged, it's that I'm really enjoying to read the opinions of a high-sec salvager about the sovereign null. It's really amusing. Now, if you of course had a prior regular experience of getting out of your Noctis in empire every once in a while, and instead have taken your time to live in sovereign null for an extended period, you would have known that Goons (and by extension CFC) is probably the only major null power that actually use their own sovereign null space. But please, don't be a stranger! Continue to share your opinion on a type of space you have no prior experience with! Even serious forum posters need a break sometimes, and your posts really help during those breaks. Thank you! lol ad-hominem at an avatar of an alt. A useless point alliteratively dismissed.
Carniflex StarHunt Mordus Angels 316	Posted - 2015.03.09 19:13:34 - [556] - Quote EvilweaselFinance wrote: Callduron wrote: I think Damps will be a pretty hard counter to any trollceptor. Maybe a frigate that can lock to 80km and and move 8km/s sounds scary but a cheap Celestis dunks it completely. Just sit on the beacon and damp it, the ceptor has to come to within 20km and all sorts of tactics will kill a tankless frigate 20km away. you can easily get inty fits to well over 80km, especially once you get pairs of inties boosting each other this also is the same dumb response that ignores the interceptor can't be caught, merely its trolling made successful by forcing you to sit on a gate doing nothing but staring impotently at it, while it can then vary it up by moving on to the next system Active sov laser prevents remote assistance. Including remote SEBO's as far as I understand. Here, sanity... niiiice sanity, come to daddy... okay, that's a good sanity... THWONK! GOT the bastard.
Acuma Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic 0	Posted - 2015.03.09 19:13:58 - [557] - Quote Promiscuous Female wrote: Acuma wrote: Except you don't......you only need one inty with the link to counter your's. except that the defending ceptor has to also root himself at the beacon for 2 minutes while the attacker's link falls off, giving him a headstart to the next beacon So he wins, you lose. You move on and start another RF timer which alerts them and they come and chase you off again because it takes you a minimum of 10 minutes to RF. I just started playing this game and I think I understand this new mechanic better than you LOL. You essentially cause zero harm to any system with players in it......and even systems within however many jumps an inty can make in 10+ minutes.
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 605	Posted - 2015.03.09 19:13:59 - [558] - Quote Eli Apol wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: here comes that "you must bring a logarithmically increasing number of dudes to counter the efforts of one person in a throwaway, yet uncatchable ship" thing again Answer me this please Einstein: If logarithmically increasing numbers are required for more sov space held, does this affect a small alliance more or less than a large alliance? more, because the small alliance caps out faster than a large alliance does goonswarm federation lives in deklein and can successfully withstand a higher degree of ceptor beacon spam than a smaller alliance trying to do the same
Eli Apol Pro Synergy 337	Posted - 2015.03.09 19:15:49 - [559] - Quote Promiscuous Female wrote: Eli Apol wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: here comes that "you must bring a logarithmically increasing number of dudes to counter the efforts of one person in a throwaway, yet uncatchable ship" thing again Answer me this please Einstein: If logarithmically increasing numbers are required for more sov space held, does this affect a small alliance more or less than a large alliance? more, because the small alliance caps out faster than a large alliance does goonswarm federation lives in deklein and can successfully withstand a higher degree of ceptor beacon spam than a smaller alliance trying to do the same The small alliance is defending one system and requires one person. Wrong answer. Anyway, keep on ship-toasting I'm glad it won't be me topping the forum stats on this thread :)
Luscius Uta 133	Posted - 2015.03.09 19:16:08 - [560] - Quote Trollceptors will not be an issue since a Celestis with bonused Information warfare links and a single remote sensor booster on it can damp and target from more than 200km away (and each Celestis can take care of up to 5 Trollceptors since that's how many Remote Sensor Dampeners it can fit). I predict that most dedicated attackers will use Ubertanked Proteuses with Dissolution Sequencers subsystems or even Bastioned Marauders, those are not cheap of course but have infinitely greater chance to have their Entosis link running uninterrupted for 2 minutes, and even more importantly, stay alive at the end of it. I'm not fat, I'm just over-tanked!

Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 605	Posted - 2015.03.09 19:16:40 - [561] - Quote Acuma wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: Acuma wrote: Except you don't......you only need one inty with the link to counter your's. except that the defending ceptor has to also root himself at the beacon for 2 minutes while the attacker's link falls off, giving him a headstart to the next beacon So he wins, you lose. You move on and start another RF timer which alerts them and they come and chase you off again because it takes you a minimum of 10 minutes to RF. I just started playing this game and I think I understand this new mechanic better than you LOL. You essentially cause zero harm to any system with players in it......and even systems within however many jumps an inty can make in 10+ minutes. it's an issue because you can't stop the attacking interceptor in any meaningful fashion from doing this every single day if someone is being a nuisance it should be mechanically possible to stop him from being a nuisance, i feel like this is a reasonable request
Acuma Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic 0	Posted - 2015.03.09 19:17:11 - [562] - Quote Luscius Uta wrote: Trollceptors will not be an issue since a Celestis with bonused Information warfare links and a single remote sensor booster on it can damp and target from more than 200km away (and each Celestis can take care of up to 5 Trollceptors since that's how many Remote Sensor Dampeners it can fit). I predict that most dedicated attackers will use Ubertanked Proteuses with Dissolution Sequencers subsystems or even Bastioned Marauders, those are not cheap of course but have infinitely greater chance to have their Entosis link running uninterrupted for 2 minutes, and even more importantly, stay alive at the end of it. 2 minutes to start it up......minimum of 10 to actually RF. That's in an unused system. Was it like 40+ in a highly used one?
PotatoOverdose Royal Black Watch Highlanders DARKNESS. 2634	Posted - 2015.03.09 19:17:22 - [563] - Quote Promiscuous Female wrote: PotatoOverdose wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: PotatoOverdose wrote: Anyone that can be assed to defend their space will succeed. WELL DONE, FULL MARKS SHERLOCK. i hear that successfully defending one objective counts as defending the whole of your space when you have more than one system Yes, god forbid an alliance of hundreds, or thousands, or even gasp tens of thousands of players has to put more than 1 cerb/eagle/cormorant/ANYTHING in a constellation. The trollceptor only wins if it is unopposed. Anything that is unopposed SHOULD win because gasp NO ONE IS OPPOSING IT. um constellations have at minimum five systems, and with three objectives each that is fifteen dudes to counter one dude and the interceptor is not hardlocked into defending that system if you had to actually risk something to necessitate this response I'd have no issues with it And the 1 inty has to capture more nodes than your 2 cerberii. Which it cant. Because capture speed is the same. So for every node the inty takes, your cerberii (or ffs Caracals, it's not like an inty can force a caracal off the field) take 2 nodes. 2 nodes/10 minutes > 1 node/10 minutes. Oh, and if you have occupancy advantages, it takes him 40 minutes to drop a node. Whereas it does not take you 40 minutes to secure a node since you don't have a defender penalty. So 1 defending caracal in an occupied constellation with defender advantage is worth 4 interceptors. OR: 1 Caracal > 3 Trollceptors GG NO RE.
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 605	Posted - 2015.03.09 19:17:54 - [564] - Quote Eli Apol wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: Eli Apol wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: here comes that "you must bring a logarithmically increasing number of dudes to counter the efforts of one person in a throwaway, yet uncatchable ship" thing again Answer me this please Einstein: If logarithmically increasing numbers are required for more sov space held, does this affect a small alliance more or less than a large alliance? more, because the small alliance caps out faster than a large alliance does goonswarm federation lives in deklein and can successfully withstand a higher degree of ceptor beacon spam than a smaller alliance trying to do the same The small alliance is defending one system and requires one person. Wrong answer. Anyway, keep on ship-toasting I'm glad it won't be me topping the forum stats on this thread :) so alliances should only be able to hold a single system, gotcha
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 605	Posted - 2015.03.09 19:19:01 - [565] - Quote PotatoOverdose wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: PotatoOverdose wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: PotatoOverdose wrote: Anyone that can be assed to defend their space will succeed. WELL DONE, FULL MARKS SHERLOCK. i hear that successfully defending one objective counts as defending the whole of your space when you have more than one system Yes, god forbid an alliance of hundreds, or thousands, or even gasp tens of thousands of players has to put more than 1 cerb/eagle/cormorant/ANYTHING in a constellation. The trollceptor only wins if it is unopposed. Anything that is unopposed SHOULD win because gasp NO ONE IS OPPOSING IT. um constellations have at minimum five systems, and with three objectives each that is fifteen dudes to counter one dude and the interceptor is not hardlocked into defending that system if you had to actually risk something to necessitate this response I'd have no issues with it And the 1 inty has to capture more nodes than your 2 cerberii. Which it cant. Because capture speed is the same. So for every node the inty takes, your cerberii (or ffs Caracals, it's not like an inty can force a caracal off the field) take 2 nodes. 2 nodes/10 minutes > 1 node/10 minutes. Oh, and if you have occupancy advantages, it takes him 40 minutes to drop a node. Whereas it does not take you 40 minutes to secure a node since you don't have a defender penalty. So 1 defending caracal in an occupied constellation with defender advantage is worth 4 interceptors. OR: 1 Caracal > 3 Trollceptors GG NO RE. you're talking about capture node pimples, not the initial rf timer, which is all that i have ever been talking about throughout this entire thread
Carniflex StarHunt Mordus Angels 316	Posted - 2015.03.09 19:20:03 - [566] - Quote Promiscuous Female wrote: afkalt wrote: Or a cerberus is on field. Or a linked rapier/huginn/lachesis/garmur. Or a sniper fit turret ship. Or a smartbombing camp is in the way. Or it comes in close to kill the ship with damps on it or that is running its own link. It's never at risk if you're remotely not serious about contesting the structure. the interceptor just disengages if any of those things somehow managed to waddle onto field in defiance of an interceptor's superior warp speed what is it about the concept "the interceptor can travel at will and disengage at will" are you chuckleheads failing to grasp Did you read that little note that this sov laser thingy disables ability to warp while its active? Here, sanity... niiiice sanity, come to daddy... okay, that's a good sanity... THWONK! GOT the bastard.
Eli Apol Pro Synergy 338	Posted - 2015.03.09 19:20:05 - [567] - Quote Promiscuous Female wrote: you're talking about capture node pimples, not the initial rf timer, which is all that i have ever been talking about throughout this entire thread Deklein's gonna have a bad case of teenage acne methinks.
Acuma Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic 0	Posted - 2015.03.09 19:20:11 - [568] - Quote Promiscuous Female wrote: Acuma wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: Acuma wrote: Except you don't......you only need one inty with the link to counter your's. except that the defending ceptor has to also root himself at the beacon for 2 minutes while the attacker's link falls off, giving him a headstart to the next beacon So he wins, you lose. You move on and start another RF timer which alerts them and they come and chase you off again because it takes you a minimum of 10 minutes to RF. I just started playing this game and I think I understand this new mechanic better than you LOL. You essentially cause zero harm to any system with players in it......and even systems within however many jumps an inty can make in 10+ minutes. it's an issue because you can't stop the attacking interceptor in any meaningful fashion from doing this every single day if someone is being a nuisance it should be mechanically possible to stop him from being a nuisance, i feel like this is a reasonable request You mean like high sec ganking?
Leisha Miranen The Alabaster Albatross Eternal Pretorian Alliance 2	Posted - 2015.03.09 19:20:20 - [569] - Quote Promiscuous Female wrote: you're talking about capture node pimples, not the initial rf timer, which is all that i have ever been talking about throughout this entire thread I just wanted to note that you've now posted more than 72 times in this thread.
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 605	Posted - 2015.03.09 19:21:19 - [570] - Quote Carniflex wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: afkalt wrote: Or a cerberus is on field. Or a linked rapier/huginn/lachesis/garmur. Or a sniper fit turret ship. Or a smartbombing camp is in the way. Or it comes in close to kill the ship with damps on it or that is running its own link. It's never at risk if you're remotely not serious about contesting the structure. the interceptor just disengages if any of those things somehow managed to waddle onto field in defiance of an interceptor's superior warp speed what is it about the concept "the interceptor can travel at will and disengage at will" are you chuckleheads failing to grasp Did you read that little note that this sov laser thingy disables ability to warp while its active? yes, and that is not an issue for a ship that is faster than nearly everything else in the game an interceptor decides it is time to bug out, but its link is still active? just burn off grid while it falls off

Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 605	Posted - 2015.03.09 19:22:29 - [571] - Quote Leisha Miranen wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: you're talking about capture node pimples, not the initial rf timer, which is all that i have ever been talking about throughout this entire thread I just wanted to note that you've now posted more than 72 times in this thread. so, wanna fight about it
Carniflex StarHunt Mordus Angels 316	Posted - 2015.03.09 19:22:58 - [572] - Quote 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 Lachesis or Rapier, combat probes would be my first suggestion. Although if the fight is not on spawned bunker but at static structure defender should have already the bookmarks prepared. Here, sanity... niiiice sanity, come to daddy... okay, that's a good sanity... THWONK! GOT the bastard.
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 605	Posted - 2015.03.09 19:23:20 - [573] - Quote Acuma wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: it's an issue because you can't stop the attacking interceptor in any meaningful fashion from doing this every single day if someone is being a nuisance it should be mechanically possible to stop him from being a nuisance, i feel like this is a reasonable request You mean like high sec ganking? avoid obvious choke points, fit tank, limit the amount you are carrying, and stay dimly aware of things like Burn Jita and you will never get ganked
Acuma Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic 0	Posted - 2015.03.09 19:24:36 - [574] - Quote Promiscuous Female wrote: Acuma wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: it's an issue because you can't stop the attacking interceptor in any meaningful fashion from doing this every single day if someone is being a nuisance it should be mechanically possible to stop him from being a nuisance, i feel like this is a reasonable request You mean like high sec ganking? avoid obvious choke points, fit tank, limit the amount you are carrying, and stay dimly aware of things like Burn Jita and you will never get ganked Have one inty with the link and you'll never get RF'd by a trollceptor.......see, I can do that too. LOL
Leisha Miranen The Alabaster Albatross Eternal Pretorian Alliance 2	Posted - 2015.03.09 19:24:39 - [575] - Quote Promiscuous Female wrote: Leisha Miranen wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: you're talking about capture node pimples, not the initial rf timer, which is all that i have ever been talking about throughout this entire thread I just wanted to note that you've now posted more than 72 times in this thread. so, wanna fight about it lol not rly, doesn't matter rly, I just noticed a lot of posts and was bopred enough to count \o/
PotatoOverdose Royal Black Watch Highlanders DARKNESS. 2634	Posted - 2015.03.09 19:25:03 - [576] - Quote Promiscuous Female wrote: you're talking about capture node pimples, not the initial rf timer, which is all that i have ever been talking about throughout this entire thread This thread is about the Entosis link and the sovereignty system thereof. Not just TCUs. If the inty's don't bother with the "pimples" that spawn immediately following the TCU RF, the TCU returns to a non-RF state. I.E. No Problem at all for the defender. In effect: Trollceptor RF TCU ---> Trollceptor Leaves ---> TCU Returns to non RF after 4 hours. (No action needed) Trollceptor RF TCU ---> Trollceptor Engages Sov Node (Need 1 caracal for every 4 Trollceptors per constellation assuming occupancy 40 minute bonus)
Alavaria Fera GoonWaffe 6576	Posted - 2015.03.09 19:25:26 - [577] - Quote Is that what the command nodes are called now, sov pimples? ^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears. Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 605	Posted - 2015.03.09 19:25:51 - [578] - Quote Acuma wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: Acuma wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: it's an issue because you can't stop the attacking interceptor in any meaningful fashion from doing this every single day if someone is being a nuisance it should be mechanically possible to stop him from being a nuisance, i feel like this is a reasonable request You mean like high sec ganking? avoid obvious choke points, fit tank, limit the amount you are carrying, and stay dimly aware of things like Burn Jita and you will never get ganked Have one inty with the link and you'll never get RF'd by a trollceptor.......see, I can do that too. LOL if you want to pose a chance of actually stopping their shenanigans you have to approach with supernumeracy in levels that are excessive to anyone other than GSF and possibly brave newbies
Sigras Conglomo 1014	Posted - 2015.03.09 19:25:52 - [579] - Quote To the people stating that trollceptors dont matter because you can counter them with a friendly entosis link... Picture this Scenario I have a fleet of 300 coming to capture your system after we reinforced it last night, but I dont like Fozzie's idea of splitting my fleet up to capture command nodes in different systems... So i allocate 20 of my ships as trollceptors. I send 4 of them to each command node to prevent it from being captured and move my other 260 people around capping the modules one by one. No need to split up my fleet, no risk of loss.
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 605	Posted - 2015.03.09 19:26:47 - [580] - Quote PotatoOverdose wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: you're talking about capture node pimples, not the initial rf timer, which is all that i have ever been talking about throughout this entire thread This thread is about the Entosis link and the sovereignty system thereof. Not just TCUs. If the inty's don't bother with the "pimples" that spawn immediately following the TCU RF, the TCU returns to a non-RF state. I.E. No Problem at all for the defender. In effect: Trollceptor RF TCU ---> Trollceptor Leaves ---> TCU Returns to non RF after 4 hours. (No action needed) Trollceptor RF TCU ---> Trollceptor Engages Sov Node (Need 1 caracal for every 4 Trollceptors per constellation assuming occupancy 40 minute bonus) what does the tcu have to do with it, you can make timers for ihubs and stations too if anything the tcu is the least vulnerable to trollceptors

Acuma Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic 0	Posted - 2015.03.09 19:27:52 - [581] - Quote Promiscuous Female wrote: Acuma wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: Acuma wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: it's an issue because you can't stop the attacking interceptor in any meaningful fashion from doing this every single day if someone is being a nuisance it should be mechanically possible to stop him from being a nuisance, i feel like this is a reasonable request You mean like high sec ganking? avoid obvious choke points, fit tank, limit the amount you are carrying, and stay dimly aware of things like Burn Jita and you will never get ganked Have one inty with the link and you'll never get RF'd by a trollceptor.......see, I can do that too. LOL if you want to pose a chance of actually stopping their shenanigans you have to approach with supernumeracy in levels that are excessive to anyone other than GSF and possibly brave newbies Not really, sounds like it's just nuisance for alliances with vast area's of unused space....the trollceptor isn't going to make a career out of gate jumping for 4 hours everyday. In an active constellation it'll be ridiculously easy to ruin trollceptor's imaginary fun of RF'ing everything.......he'll get bored accomplishing nothing and then maybe some real fighting can occur.
Alp Khan GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 289	Posted - 2015.03.09 19:27:57 - [582] - Quote Eli Apoli wrote: lol ad-hominem at an avatar of an alt.. Not really, you have demonstrated your lack of insight on sovereign null time and time again with your posts under the thread. You even posted once yourself that you do not want to sound like a high-sec salvager that knows everything in EVE. Well, you awfully sound like one, therefore, I'm just reiterating your opinion of yourself. You haven't lived in null before, you don't even recognize that Goons and by extension CFC use their sovereign space at levels unlike seen with any other major null power. Yet, you are trying really hard to pretend that your opinions are based on solid assumptions, and not patched up guesswork as it really reads like. But you continue to entertain, I'll give that to you. Now you are implying that you are an alt of a null dweller! I'm hoping for another post coming from you that will claim you are actually an alt of a sovereign null alliance leader, and that your wild and speculative rhetoric should be taken seriously because of that.
Alavaria Fera GoonWaffe 6576	Posted - 2015.03.09 19:27:59 - [583] - Quote Sigras wrote: To the people stating that trollceptors dont matter because you can counter them with a friendly entosis link... Picture this Scenario I have a fleet of 300 coming to capture your system after we reinforced it last night, but I dont like Fozzie's idea of splitting my fleet up to capture command nodes in different systems... So i allocate 20 of my ships as trollceptors. I send 4 of them to each command node to prevent it from being captured and move my other 260 people around capping the modules one by one. No need to split up my fleet, no risk of loss. So,,, you're blobbing, you're blobbing... ^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears. Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
Eli Apol Pro Synergy 338	Posted - 2015.03.09 19:28:08 - [584] - Quote Sigras wrote: To the people stating that trollceptors dont matter because you can counter them with a friendly entosis link... Picture this Scenario I have a fleet of 300 coming to capture your system after we reinforced it last night, but I dont like Fozzie's idea of splitting my fleet up to capture command nodes in different systems... So i allocate 20 of my ships as trollceptors. I send 4 of them to each command node to prevent it from being captured and move my other 260 people around capping the modules one by one. No need to split up my fleet, no risk of loss. I think one maulus or griffin completely stops 3, maybe 4 trollceptors, so yeah 2 ewar frigs and then a friendly laser and you cap each of those points with just 2 people in 10 minutes whilst the fleet of 260 takes upto 40 minutes to cap one.
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 605	Posted - 2015.03.09 19:29:09 - [585] - Quote Acuma wrote: Not really, sounds like it's just nuisance for alliances with vast area's of unused space....the trollceptor isn't going to make a career out of gate jumping for 4 hours everyday. It'll get boring while accomplishing nothing and then maybe some real fighting can occur. it's a nuisance for any alliance who does not overwhelmingly outnumber the people attacking them guess who has the most numbers in eve hint: it's us
Mr Omniblivion GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 492	Posted - 2015.03.09 19:29:59 - [586] - Quote Pre-emptive "we told you so" before the inevitable tears of everyone getting hosed by these changes (hint: it's not us)
PotatoOverdose Royal Black Watch Highlanders DARKNESS. 2634	Posted - 2015.03.09 19:30:06 - [587] - Quote Promiscuous Female wrote: PotatoOverdose wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: you're talking about capture node pimples, not the initial rf timer, which is all that i have ever been talking about throughout this entire thread This thread is about the Entosis link and the sovereignty system thereof. Not just TCUs. If the inty's don't bother with the "pimples" that spawn immediately following the TCU RF, the TCU returns to a non-RF state. I.E. No Problem at all for the defender. In effect: Trollceptor RF TCU ---> Trollceptor Leaves ---> TCU Returns to non RF after 4 hours. (No action needed) Trollceptor RF TCU ---> Trollceptor Engages Sov Node (Need 1 caracal for every 4 Trollceptors per constellation assuming occupancy 40 minute bonus) what does the tcu have to do with it, you can make timers for ihubs and stations too if anything the tcu is the least vulnerable to trollceptors Same deal, if something is RF'd by a trollceptor, and then the inty ignores the "sov pimples" (your stated concern), the RF'd structure (station, IHub, TCU, w/e) returns to a non RF state at the end of 4 hours. If, as you say, you aren't discussing the trollceptor attacking "sov pimples", then you're literally worrying about having to take no action whatsoever, as any attack that isn't followed by a bout of pimple popping does absolutely nothing.
Carniflex StarHunt Mordus Angels 316	Posted - 2015.03.09 19:30:16 - [588] - Quote EvilweaselFinance wrote: Groperson wrote: [We do, we have pvp'ers at home, running bubbled gatecamps with instalockers and even they are unable to catch the interceptor gangs that come through. How would you suggest we counter the interceptor gangs? obviously by using neuting bumping nafalgars or whatever the latest theoretical approach is that anyone who has spent 5m in null knows won't work and why i think smartbombs are the lastest hotness in theorycrafting because npc alts can't activate smartbombs where they live so they don't know you can't smartbomb if you'd hit a gate Local pirate population in aunenen (spelling?) seems to be pretty good at getting my interceptors with smartbombs. Trick seems to be sitting on outbound gate, certain distance from gate and hit the right number of bombs when the ship appears on short range scan. The smartbombs will hit it during the warp deacceleration phase. Here, sanity... niiiice sanity, come to daddy... okay, that's a good sanity... THWONK! GOT the bastard.
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 605	Posted - 2015.03.09 19:31:27 - [589] - Quote PotatoOverdose wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: PotatoOverdose wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: you're talking about capture node pimples, not the initial rf timer, which is all that i have ever been talking about throughout this entire thread This thread is about the Entosis link and the sovereignty system thereof. Not just TCUs. If the inty's don't bother with the "pimples" that spawn immediately following the TCU RF, the TCU returns to a non-RF state. I.E. No Problem at all for the defender. In effect: Trollceptor RF TCU ---> Trollceptor Leaves ---> TCU Returns to non RF after 4 hours. (No action needed) Trollceptor RF TCU ---> Trollceptor Engages Sov Node (Need 1 caracal for every 4 Trollceptors per constellation assuming occupancy 40 minute bonus) what does the tcu have to do with it, you can make timers for ihubs and stations too if anything the tcu is the least vulnerable to trollceptors Same deal, if something is RF'd by a trollceptor, and then the inty ignores the "sov pimples" (your stated concern), the RF'd structure (station, IHub, TCU, w/e) returns to a non RF state at the end of 4 hours. If, as you say, you aren't discussing the trollceptor attacking "sov pimples", then you're literally worrying about having to take no action whatsoever, as any attack that isn't followed by a bout of pimple popping does absolutely nothing. the problem is that a single attacker generates a disproportionate amount of work for the defenders at any scale without enduring even an iota of risk that is the whole thing
Acuma Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic 0	Posted - 2015.03.09 19:31:40 - [590] - Quote Promiscuous Female wrote: Acuma wrote: Not really, sounds like it's just nuisance for alliances with vast area's of unused space....the trollceptor isn't going to make a career out of gate jumping for 4 hours everyday. It'll get boring while accomplishing nothing and then maybe some real fighting can occur. it's a nuisance for any alliance who does not overwhelmingly outnumber the people attacking them guess who has the most numbers in eve hint: it's us So the problem isn't with "trollceptors" then is it? Your numbers advantage will remain the same whether ceptors can use the link or not.

Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 605	Posted - 2015.03.09 19:33:41 - [591] - Quote Acuma wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: Acuma wrote: Not really, sounds like it's just nuisance for alliances with vast area's of unused space....the trollceptor isn't going to make a career out of gate jumping for 4 hours everyday. It'll get boring while accomplishing nothing and then maybe some real fighting can occur. it's a nuisance for any alliance who does not overwhelmingly outnumber the people attacking them guess who has the most numbers in eve hint: it's us So the problem isn't with "trollceptors" then is it? Your numbers advantage will remain the same whether ceptors can use the link or not. the problem is entirely trollceptors the fact that we can safeguard our empire is immaterial to the fact that we cannot stop a single person from generating an insane amount of work that must be responded to in every single instance or you risk losing your ihub
SilentAsTheGrave Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective 70	Posted - 2015.03.09 19:34:27 - [592] - Quote ADMlNlSTRATOR wrote: Is it true that using a Entosis Link on a sovereignty structure will NOT display any notifications to the players of the alliance owning the structure unless they are in the system under attack? Because, if so, it would highly disengage players from defending their space rather than engage them to undock and go defend their space. Some big alliances will used their existing IT infrastructure to query the API for such events, but even so, this information will probably be 10 minus late, if even available to normal players (think FC, Directors, CEO only). While there is the question whether you want small scale sovereignty attacks to be dependable with or without FCs, in order to get more people engaged, the attack notifications should be instantaneous and to all players in the alliance owning the structure under attack. Or you could just be active in the system instead of relying on a 3rd party program to monitor the sov for you. Notifications just enable groups to setup AFK empires. Being undocked and at the keyboard is just what the doctor ordered. NO NOTIFICATIONS!
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 605	Posted - 2015.03.09 19:34:28 - [593] - Quote like i am basically repeating the same thing over and over because y'all keep circling around these same few talking points without actually refuting what i am saying i could set up a perl script to win the thread at this point
Arthur Aihaken X A X 4102	Posted - 2015.03.09 19:34:47 - [594] - Quote I've been following these related threads for a few weeks now, and as an outsider I really only have one question: How is any of this supposed to be any FUN? I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 605	Posted - 2015.03.09 19:35:23 - [595] - Quote SilentAsTheGrave wrote: ADMlNlSTRATOR wrote: Is it true that using a Entosis Link on a sovereignty structure will NOT display any notifications to the players of the alliance owning the structure unless they are in the system under attack? Because, if so, it would highly disengage players from defending their space rather than engage them to undock and go defend their space. Some big alliances will used their existing IT infrastructure to query the API for such events, but even so, this information will probably be 10 minus late, if even available to normal players (think FC, Directors, CEO only). While there is the question whether you want small scale sovereignty attacks to be dependable with or without FCs, in order to get more people engaged, the attack notifications should be instantaneous and to all players in the alliance owning the structure under attack. Or you could just be active in the system instead of relying on a 3rd party program to monitor the sov for you. Notifications just enable groups to setup AFK empires. Being undocked and at the keyboard is just what the doctor ordered. NO NOTIFICATIONS! i suspect that the sov notifications will be built into the game for people actively logged in, as third party programs would be subject to at minimum a five minute delay, which is pretty impossible to act on with the new system
PotatoOverdose Royal Black Watch Highlanders DARKNESS. 2634	Posted - 2015.03.09 19:36:17 - [596] - Quote Promiscuous Female wrote: PotatoOverdose wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: PotatoOverdose wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: you're talking about capture node pimples, not the initial rf timer, which is all that i have ever been talking about throughout this entire thread This thread is about the Entosis link and the sovereignty system thereof. Not just TCUs. If the inty's don't bother with the "pimples" that spawn immediately following the TCU RF, the TCU returns to a non-RF state. I.E. No Problem at all for the defender. In effect: Trollceptor RF TCU ---> Trollceptor Leaves ---> TCU Returns to non RF after 4 hours. (No action needed) Trollceptor RF TCU ---> Trollceptor Engages Sov Node (Need 1 caracal for every 4 Trollceptors per constellation assuming occupancy 40 minute bonus) what does the tcu have to do with it, you can make timers for ihubs and stations too if anything the tcu is the least vulnerable to trollceptors Same deal, if something is RF'd by a trollceptor, and then the inty ignores the "sov pimples" (your stated concern), the RF'd structure (station, IHub, TCU, w/e) returns to a non RF state at the end of 4 hours. If, as you say, you aren't discussing the trollceptor attacking "sov pimples", then you're literally worrying about having to take no action whatsoever, as any attack that isn't followed by a bout of pimple popping does absolutely nothing. the problem is that a single attacker generates a disproportionate amount of work for the defenders at any scale without enduring even an iota of risk that is the whole thing A single attacker generates no work if they don't move to the pimple popping phase (which was your stated concern). In a Constellation with occupancy bonuses (40 minute penalty for attacker), 1 defending caracal > 3 troll ceptors. This generates work, but isn't just ONE attacker. The only place where the trollceptor is a threat is an UNUSED AND UNDEFENDED system. And nothing entitles you to the ownership of a system that you neither use nor defend.
Murkar Omaristos The Alabaster Albatross Eternal Pretorian Alliance 102	Posted - 2015.03.09 19:37:01 - [597] - Quote Arthur Aihaken wrote: I've been following these related threads for a few weeks now, and as an outsider I really only have one question: How is any of this supposed to be any FUN? This right here is one of the main problems
Dekyk Project Valhalla. The Initiative. 5	Posted - 2015.03.09 19:37:16 - [598] - Quote Promiscuous Female wrote: Ranger 1 wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: Ranger 1 wrote: However, if you continue to pose your arguments as : We want good fights. this is where you've lost the thread at no point is goonswarm federation interested in good fights defense of our empire comes first, subjugation of those who would even think of attacking our empire comes second, subjugation of everyone else comes third fights occasionally occur in the process of completing these two objectives but are completely tangential to our desires and goals That was pretty slick. Excellent avoidance of every relevant point in the post. Nice to know some things never change. when i can topple the entire post by refuting its primary fulcrum with a minimum of effort i will usually choose that option You call 70+ posts a minimum of effort? Seriously, stop crapping all over this thread and making it longer than it needs to be please.
Alavaria Fera GoonWaffe 6576	Posted - 2015.03.09 19:38:25 - [599] - Quote Promiscuous Female wrote: like i am basically repeating the same thing over and over because y'all keep circling around these same few talking points without actually refuting what i am saying i could set up a perl script to win the thread at this point You'd be banned for forum botting So you'd lose the thread ^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears. Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
Corey Lean GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 74	Posted - 2015.03.09 19:38:30 - [600] - Quote Arthur Aihaken wrote: I've been following these related threads for a few weeks now, and as an outsider I really only have one question: How is any of this supposed to be any FUN? Well its fun if theres a fight. Everybody gets some kills and goes home happy. But all these highsec salvagers, lowsec pirates and NPC null dwellers are dead set on rolling around in interceptors and not fighting.

Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 606	Posted - 2015.03.09 19:38:49 - [601] - Quote PotatoOverdose wrote: A single attacker generates no work if they don't move to the pimple popping phase (which was your stated concern). In a Constellation with occupancy bonuses (40 minute penalty for attacker), 1 defending caracal > 3 troll ceptors. This generates work, but isn't just ONE attacker. The only place where the trollceptor is a threat is an UNUSED AND UNDEFENDED system. And nothing entitles you to the ownership of a system that you neither use nor defend. uh yes, the defender absolutely has to respond to the pimples in every single instance or the ihub / tcu gets destroyed and the station either freeported or seized by someone completely unrelated waddling into the space on a lark even if the initial RF trollceptor biomasses and gets arrested for terminal autism, the defenders have to contest the pimples because the pimples don't go away like that is a fundamental part of the new sov system
Eli Apol Pro Synergy 338	Posted - 2015.03.09 19:39:11 - [602] - Quote Arthur Aihaken wrote: I've been following these related threads for a few weeks now, and as an outsider I really only have one question: How is any of this supposed to be any FUN? If you can assume (or accept) that trollceptor fleets can and will be easily countered in actively used sov space, which I know is a big ask even though the final stats on the module haven't been finalised... ...want to pvp: take a pvp ship or fleet and put a link on a structure, wait for a defender to undock and come fight :)
SilentAsTheGrave Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective 70	Posted - 2015.03.09 19:39:12 - [603] - Quote Promiscuous Female wrote: Acuma wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: Acuma wrote: Not really, sounds like it's just nuisance for alliances with vast area's of unused space....the trollceptor isn't going to make a career out of gate jumping for 4 hours everyday. It'll get boring while accomplishing nothing and then maybe some real fighting can occur. it's a nuisance for any alliance who does not overwhelmingly outnumber the people attacking them guess who has the most numbers in eve hint: it's us So the problem isn't with "trollceptors" then is it? Your numbers advantage will remain the same whether ceptors can use the link or not. the problem is entirely trollceptors the fact that we can safeguard our empire is immaterial to the fact that we cannot stop a single person from generating an insane amount of work that must be responded to in every single instance or you risk losing your ihub It is pretty easy to toss on an Entosis Link and just render that Trollceptor useless. Insane amount of work you say?
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 606	Posted - 2015.03.09 19:39:42 - [604] - Quote Dekyk wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: Ranger 1 wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: Ranger 1 wrote: However, if you continue to pose your arguments as : We want good fights. this is where you've lost the thread at no point is goonswarm federation interested in good fights defense of our empire comes first, subjugation of those who would even think of attacking our empire comes second, subjugation of everyone else comes third fights occasionally occur in the process of completing these two objectives but are completely tangential to our desires and goals That was pretty slick. Excellent avoidance of every relevant point in the post. Nice to know some things never change. when i can topple the entire post by refuting its primary fulcrum with a minimum of effort i will usually choose that option You call 70+ posts a minimum of effort? Seriously, stop crapping all over this thread and making it longer than it needs to be please. a single post does not necessarily demonstrate a particularly large amount of effort, yes
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 606	Posted - 2015.03.09 19:40:36 - [605] - Quote SilentAsTheGrave wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: Acuma wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: Acuma wrote: Not really, sounds like it's just nuisance for alliances with vast area's of unused space....the trollceptor isn't going to make a career out of gate jumping for 4 hours everyday. It'll get boring while accomplishing nothing and then maybe some real fighting can occur. it's a nuisance for any alliance who does not overwhelmingly outnumber the people attacking them guess who has the most numbers in eve hint: it's us So the problem isn't with "trollceptors" then is it? Your numbers advantage will remain the same whether ceptors can use the link or not. the problem is entirely trollceptors the fact that we can safeguard our empire is immaterial to the fact that we cannot stop a single person from generating an insane amount of work that must be responded to in every single instance or you risk losing your ihub It is pretty easy to toss on an Entosis Link and just render that Trollceptor useless. Insane amount of work you say? it doesn't get rendered useless, the attacking trollceptor just shrugs, disengages, and starts RFing something else if you actually want to stop it, hope you got lots of dudes
Acuma Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic 0	Posted - 2015.03.09 19:42:47 - [606] - Quote Promiscuous Female wrote: Acuma wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: Acuma wrote: Not really, sounds like it's just nuisance for alliances with vast area's of unused space....the trollceptor isn't going to make a career out of gate jumping for 4 hours everyday. It'll get boring while accomplishing nothing and then maybe some real fighting can occur. it's a nuisance for any alliance who does not overwhelmingly outnumber the people attacking them guess who has the most numbers in eve hint: it's us So the problem isn't with "trollceptors" then is it? Your numbers advantage will remain the same whether ceptors can use the link or not. the problem is entirely trollceptors the fact that we can safeguard our empire is immaterial to the fact that we cannot stop a single person from generating an insane amount of work that must be responded to in every single instance or you risk losing your ihub Promiscuous Female wrote: it doesn't get rendered useless, the attacking trollceptor just shrugs, disengages, and starts RFing something else if you actually want to stop it, hope you got lots of dudes Again, that's not the mechanic. Only takes one inty to counter you.....just one. It takes you a minimum of 12 minutes to RF. The defender won't lose the ihub unless you come back to take the command nodes if for some reason they can't field one little bitty ship to stop you. How far can an inty go in the 12 minutes minimum(more like 30+) it takes you to RF something?
SilentAsTheGrave Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective 70	Posted - 2015.03.09 19:43:09 - [607] - Quote Here is what I don't understand: Why are people taking sov of a system they don't want to be active in during their prime time? Someone please tell me the logic behind that.
Eli Apol Pro Synergy 338	Posted - 2015.03.09 19:43:23 - [608] - Quote Promiscuous Female wrote: it doesn't get rendered useless, the attacking trollceptor just shrugs, disengages, and starts RFing something else if you actually want to stop it, hope you got lots of dudes Three words: Defensive indices bonus /straps in
Arrendis GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 313	Posted - 2015.03.09 19:43:24 - [609] - Quote Sigras wrote: To the people stating that trollceptors dont matter because you can counter them with a friendly entosis link... Picture this Scenario I have a fleet of 300 coming to capture your system after we reinforced it last night, but I dont like Fozzie's idea of splitting my fleet up to capture command nodes in different systems... So i allocate 20 of my ships as trollceptors. I send 4 of them to each command node to prevent it from being captured and move my other 260 people around capping the modules one by one. No need to split up my fleet, no risk of loss. How'd you get 300 in fleet?
PotatoOverdose Royal Black Watch Highlanders DARKNESS. 2634	Posted - 2015.03.09 19:44:01 - [610] - Quote Promiscuous Female wrote: PotatoOverdose wrote: A single attacker generates no work if they don't move to the pimple popping phase (which was your stated concern). In a Constellation with occupancy bonuses (40 minute penalty for attacker), 1 defending caracal > 3 troll ceptors. This generates work, but isn't just ONE attacker. The only place where the trollceptor is a threat is an UNUSED AND UNDEFENDED system. And nothing entitles you to the ownership of a system that you neither use nor defend. uh yes, the defender absolutely has to respond to the pimples in every single instance But you just said you weren't discussing sov pimples here: Promiscuous Female wrote: you're talking about capture node pimples, not the initial rf timer, which is all that i have ever been talking about throughout this entire thread "All that you were talking about throughout the entire thread" was trollceptors in the initial RF timer, your own words. Promiscuous Female wrote: like i am basically repeating the same thing over and over because y'all keep circling around these same few talking points without actually refuting what i am saying i could set up a perl script to win the thread at this point Hmm, sounds like your Perl script is a wee bit broken...Just like when you posted (repeatedly) how nothing could possibly engage your 100km locking trollceptor and were proven wrong, repeatedly.

Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 606	Posted - 2015.03.09 19:44:43 - [611] - Quote Acuma wrote: Again, that's not the mechanic. Only takes one inty to counter you.....just one. It takes you a minimum of 12 minutes to RF. The defender won't lose the ihub unless you come back to take the command nodes if for some reason they can't field one little bitty ship to stop you. and yet the defender must come to contest the ihub pimple nodes if the single trollceptor succeeds it's not an option, which is why the trollceptor is so effective if you don't kill a single person, you have to do clean-up on aisle 10 now scale this out to 20 people and you see where things break down
Sigras Conglomo 1014	Posted - 2015.03.09 19:44:55 - [612] - Quote Eli Apol wrote: Sigras wrote: To the people stating that trollceptors dont matter because you can counter them with a friendly entosis link... Picture this Scenario I have a fleet of 300 coming to capture your system after we reinforced it last night, but I dont like Fozzie's idea of splitting my fleet up to capture command nodes in different systems... So i allocate 20 of my ships as trollceptors. I send 4 of them to each command node to prevent it from being captured and move my other 260 people around capping the modules one by one. No need to split up my fleet, no risk of loss. I think one maulus or griffin completely stops 3, maybe 4 trollceptors, so yeah 2 ewar frigs and then a friendly laser and you cap each of those points with just 2 people in 10 minutes whilst the fleet of 260 takes upto 40 minutes to cap one. WTB griffin or maulus with 250km lock range
Dracvlad Taishi Combine Second-Dawn 722	Posted - 2015.03.09 19:46:01 - [613] - Quote T1 Entosis Link, cost 20m, 25 km range, 5 minute cycle T2 Entosis Link cost 80m, 250 km range, 2 minute cycle It is understood that the initial cycle is in addition to the base period of 10 minutes, so you have to run a whole cycle to start the process. That another link on grid blocks your cycle. Once started the defender has to win the contest to set back to 0, after the 4 hours are up the cycle ends. You can only lock to the range of your ship, so 250 km is meaningless for interceptors. You cannot warp, dock or be repped while the link is active and you need to maintain target lock, I have a question on cloaking, I would suggest that you cannot cloak while the module is active. In terms of an interceptor, I would strongly suggest that this ship will not be able to fit a cloak along with this module. Perhaps we could have a time modifier based on speed of the ship, so that the faster you go the longer you have to be there, starting the speed distortion at 2,500 m/s, so at 5,000 m/s it takes double the time. These adjustments should reduce the lol factor a fair amount. The issue I have is making sure that it ends up with system defence not region defence, though having to deal with defensive gate camps can be fun, the simple factor is that only T3 strat cruisers are better at dealing with bubble camps, interceptors have to be aware of sintant lockers and they are costly to lose in terms of SP and ship cost. Of course other cloakies can be used but some sabre pilots are rather good at de-cloaking in bubbles, then we have of course BLOP's but will you put one of them next to a TCU. We of course all know that WH's are another way to get into target space. but is hardly reliable. Whatever which way I slice and dice it I think that an IHUB in a used system is just too vulnerable, and when you get to level 5's upgrades as people have said too important and difficult to install, that is a serious issue. I noted that the T2 modules cycle time meshed with the bastion mode of Marauders, so it could be that you make the T2 version fit on only BC's and above. Ella's Snack bar
Acuma Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic 0	Posted - 2015.03.09 19:46:44 - [614] - Quote Promiscuous Female wrote: Acuma wrote: Again, that's not the mechanic. Only takes one inty to counter you.....just one. It takes you a minimum of 12 minutes to RF. The defender won't lose the ihub unless you come back to take the command nodes if for some reason they can't field one little bitty ship to stop you. and yet the defender must come to contest the ihub pimple nodes if the single trollceptor succeeds it's not an option, which is why the trollceptor is so effective if you don't kill a single person, you have to do clean-up on aisle 10 now scale this out to 20 people and you see where things break down If a single inty can take sovereignty uncontested, it's probably an unused system the defender shouldn't have sovereignty over anyways....working as intended? How far can one inty go in 12 minutes when they are alerted to you RFing?
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 606	Posted - 2015.03.09 19:46:50 - [615] - Quote PotatoOverdose wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: PotatoOverdose wrote: A single attacker generates no work if they don't move to the pimple popping phase (which was your stated concern). In a Constellation with occupancy bonuses (40 minute penalty for attacker), 1 defending caracal > 3 troll ceptors. This generates work, but isn't just ONE attacker. The only place where the trollceptor is a threat is an UNUSED AND UNDEFENDED system. And nothing entitles you to the ownership of a system that you neither use nor defend. uh yes, the defender absolutely has to respond to the pimples in every single instance But you just said you weren't discussing sov pimples here: Promiscuous Female wrote: you're talking about capture node pimples, not the initial rf timer, which is all that i have ever been talking about throughout this entire thread "All that you were talking about throughout the entire thread" was trollceptors in the initial RF timer, your own words. Promiscuous Female wrote: like i am basically repeating the same thing over and over because y'all keep circling around these same few talking points without actually refuting what i am saying i could set up a perl script to win the thread at this point Hmm, sounds like your Perl script is a wee bit broken...Just like when you posted how nothing could possibly engage your 100km locking trollceptor and were proven wrong, repeatedly. we're still talking about the initial rf phase; nowhere in this thread have I ever even gone to the scenario where the sov pimples are being fought over the sov pimples in this discussion strictly serve as the punishment for not dedicating a disproportionate amount of manpower to countering a single trollceptor every single day
Murkar Omaristos The Alabaster Albatross Eternal Pretorian Alliance 102	Posted - 2015.03.09 19:47:15 - [616] - Quote Sigras wrote: WTB griffin or maulus with 250km lock range Triple sebo'd keres will do that \o/
PotatoOverdose Royal Black Watch Highlanders DARKNESS. 2634	Posted - 2015.03.09 19:47:29 - [617] - Quote Sigras wrote: Eli Apol wrote: Sigras wrote: To the people stating that trollceptors dont matter because you can counter them with a friendly entosis link... Picture this Scenario I have a fleet of 300 coming to capture your system after we reinforced it last night, but I dont like Fozzie's idea of splitting my fleet up to capture command nodes in different systems... So i allocate 20 of my ships as trollceptors. I send 4 of them to each command node to prevent it from being captured and move my other 260 people around capping the modules one by one. No need to split up my fleet, no risk of loss. I think one maulus or griffin completely stops 3, maybe 4 trollceptors, so yeah 2 ewar frigs and then a friendly laser and you cap each of those points with just 2 people in 10 minutes whilst the fleet of 260 takes upto 40 minutes to cap one. WTB griffin or maulus with 250km lock range WTB trollceptor with 250km lock range. Honestly, people forget that the default lock range on these things is 20-30km, lol.
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 608	Posted - 2015.03.09 19:48:46 - [618] - Quote Acuma wrote: If a single inty can take sovereignty uncontested, it's probably an unused system the defender shouldn't have sovereignty over anyways....working as intended? How far can one inty go in 12 minutes when they are alerted to you RFing? we aren't even into the "lost sov object" phase of the discussion yet but thank you for your off-topic contribution laced with talking points about unused sov
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 608	Posted - 2015.03.09 19:49:35 - [619] - Quote PotatoOverdose wrote: Sigras wrote: Eli Apol wrote: Sigras wrote: To the people stating that trollceptors dont matter because you can counter them with a friendly entosis link... Picture this Scenario I have a fleet of 300 coming to capture your system after we reinforced it last night, but I dont like Fozzie's idea of splitting my fleet up to capture command nodes in different systems... So i allocate 20 of my ships as trollceptors. I send 4 of them to each command node to prevent it from being captured and move my other 260 people around capping the modules one by one. No need to split up my fleet, no risk of loss. I think one maulus or griffin completely stops 3, maybe 4 trollceptors, so yeah 2 ewar frigs and then a friendly laser and you cap each of those points with just 2 people in 10 minutes whilst the fleet of 260 takes upto 40 minutes to cap one. WTB griffin or maulus with 250km lock range WTB trollceptor with 250km lock range. Honestly, people forget that the default lock range on these things is 20-30km, lol. do they not have sensor boosters and ionic rigs where you live
PotatoOverdose Royal Black Watch Highlanders DARKNESS. 2634	Posted - 2015.03.09 19:49:56 - [620] - Quote Promiscuous Female wrote: the sov pimples in this discussion strictly serve as the punishment for not dedicating a disproportionate amount of manpower to countering a single trollceptor every single day You're backtracking. Your perl script really needs some love. Promiscuous Female wrote: you're talking about capture node pimples, not the initial rf timer, which is all that i have ever been talking about throughout this entire thread You mention no punishment here, only the initial RF timer.

Acuma Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic 0	Posted - 2015.03.09 19:50:20 - [621] - Quote Promiscuous Female wrote: Acuma wrote: If a single inty can take sovereignty uncontested, it's probably an unused system the defender shouldn't have sovereignty over anyways....working as intended? How far can one inty go in 12 minutes when they are alerted to you RFing? we aren't even into the "lost sov object" phase of the discussion yet but thank you for your off-topic contribution laced with talking points about unused sov You're very welcome, now can you tell me how many jumps an inty can make in 12 minutes to counter your inty who actually thinks it's going to RF something? I seriously want to know how many jumps in 12 minutes.....LOL
Sigras Conglomo 1014	Posted - 2015.03.09 19:50:43 - [622] - Quote My point is that trollceptors are going to shape the meta. Every defense fleet will have to be set up specifically to defend against them which is something they just said in the OP that they didnt want. The problem is they need to define "Military control of the grid" better. If I have 20 command ships and 10 guardians vs your 15 vagabonds do I have military control of the grid? I would say yes, as my fleet can do as it pleases and yours cant come near mine, but yet I still cant cap the point.
John McCreedy Eve Defence Force The Kadeshi 174	Posted - 2015.03.09 19:50:47 - [623] - Quote The problem with the Entosis link is that it can be fit on every ship, therefore the 'trollceptor' fleets will reinforce every system simultaneously. Other than the aforementioned Deployable Entosis Module, I think the best way is going to be to place several limits on the ship link. These would be: Fitting requirements limited to Cruiser above. Zero propulsion (like a cyno) while cycle active. Penalties to Cap ships. Unable to fit with a cloak. Unable to fit with an Interdiction module. Increased cycle time on module. Scrap the vulnerability window so it can be attacked at any time as it is now. Allow alliances to set a window for timer exit. However, as a trade off for Zero propulsion, allow for remote assistance. What I'm driving towards here is that any ship that is going to hack your sov should need an escort. With an escort spotted in local, it will be recognised as an immediate threat - whether to your sov or not is irrelevant - and leads to confrontation. Confrontation with remote assistance provided to hacking ship should allow for potential escalation. Potential escalation still allows for large fleet battles to occur and for Caps and Supers to maintain a combat role if the escalation goes far enough. Right now, people usually fight over the timers, not the reinforcement. The new system will add the major fights, where chosen, to the reinforcement with the skirmishes to the timers. Alliances can choose whether to contest the reinforcement or the timers themselves, depending upon where their pilot's skills lie. Contesting Sovereignty will be multi-layered rather than a simple brute force approach. Occupancy bonus applies as a increase to cycle time/hit chance if system is chance based like ECM (we need clarification on this point). - Attacker is happy because he gets a fight or gains new space. - Defender is happy because he's not running around like a blue arse fly playing trollceptors Online. - Industrialists happy because they still have ships to build and sell. - Single Time zone alliances happy because they don't have to spend all their play time babysitting systems. - Minority time zones within alliances happy for the same reasons. Thoughts?
Arrendis GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 313	Posted - 2015.03.09 19:50:53 - [624] - Quote SilentAsTheGrave wrote: Here is what I don't understand: Why are people taking sov of a system they don't want to be active in during their prime time? Someone please tell me the logic behind that. There's a few reasons I can see - resource availability, like moons, or buffer zones, for example. Border Marches have a long history, after all, along with the 'good fences make good neighbors' idea. Or constellation/region choke points. Just because you want to hold an area to exploit its strategic value and resources doesn't mean you want to live there - or that it's capable of supporting efforts to live there. At the same time, there should be ways to make use of that space that actually count as making use of that space, if it's something you're holding for military/industrial value, not residential, if you will.
SilentAsTheGrave Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective 70	Posted - 2015.03.09 19:50:54 - [625] - Quote Promiscuous Female wrote: if you actually want to stop it, hope you got lots of dudes If the system is worth keeping sov, activity will be there. Which incidentally is all that is needed to stop this interceptor of doom. So you see, it works out. Any systems a group can't be bothered to be active in will be shed and a group who will bother being active in said system during their prime time will take it. Thus, working as intended. Why is this so hard to comprehend?
PotatoOverdose Royal Black Watch Highlanders DARKNESS. 2634	Posted - 2015.03.09 19:51:08 - [626] - Quote Promiscuous Female wrote: PotatoOverdose wrote: Sigras wrote: Eli Apol wrote: Sigras wrote: To the people stating that trollceptors dont matter because you can counter them with a friendly entosis link... Picture this Scenario I have a fleet of 300 coming to capture your system after we reinforced it last night, but I dont like Fozzie's idea of splitting my fleet up to capture command nodes in different systems... So i allocate 20 of my ships as trollceptors. I send 4 of them to each command node to prevent it from being captured and move my other 260 people around capping the modules one by one. No need to split up my fleet, no risk of loss. I think one maulus or griffin completely stops 3, maybe 4 trollceptors, so yeah 2 ewar frigs and then a friendly laser and you cap each of those points with just 2 people in 10 minutes whilst the fleet of 260 takes upto 40 minutes to cap one. WTB griffin or maulus with 250km lock range WTB trollceptor with 250km lock range. Honestly, people forget that the default lock range on these things is 20-30km, lol. do they not have sensor boosters and ionic rigs where you live 1 bil to you if you link me a lone ceptor fit to lock to 250km (and that fit isn't shopped). Soooo much ignorance of basic mechanics in this thread.
Tycho VI Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective 6	Posted - 2015.03.09 19:51:13 - [627] - Quote afkalt wrote: Trollceptors are a myth do not buy it. They'll be shattered by missile boats. The problem with interceptors being fitted with the Entosis isn't the couple troll ceptors that will be going around space. It is the fact that a good 40 of them can leave the system of Amarr in Highsec and they can literally be deep in Cobalt Edge or Esoteria within 15-20 mins. Due to being interdiction nullified, they can move very quickly throughout new eden on short notice. I believe that this would not be an issue some years ago when interceptors were not interdiction nullified. Having strategically places bubbles on gates should be a viable method of defending your space by giving some time to see the attack coming.
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 608	Posted - 2015.03.09 19:51:46 - [628] - Quote PotatoOverdose wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: the sov pimples in this discussion strictly serve as the punishment for not dedicating a disproportionate amount of manpower to countering a single trollceptor every single day You're backtracking. Your perl script really needs some love. Promiscuous Female wrote: you're talking about capture node pimples, not the initial rf timer, which is all that i have ever been talking about throughout this entire thread You mention no punishment here, only the initial RF timer. arguing semantics doesn't really help you here the sov pimples are related to the initial RF timer by way of being the punishment for failing to contest any threat to your sovereignty the process of capturing the sov pimples is what is not interesting right now
Eli Apol Pro Synergy 339	Posted - 2015.03.09 19:51:59 - [629] - Quote PotatoOverdose wrote: You're backtracking. Your perl script really needs some love. GIGO ^^
Alp Khan GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 289	Posted - 2015.03.09 19:52:21 - [630] - Quote PotatoOverdose wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: PotatoOverdose wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: you're talking about capture node pimples, not the initial rf timer, which is all that i have ever been talking about throughout this entire thread This thread is about the Entosis link and the sovereignty system thereof. Not just TCUs. If the inty's don't bother with the "pimples" that spawn immediately following the TCU RF, the TCU returns to a non-RF state. I.E. No Problem at all for the defender. In effect: Trollceptor RF TCU ---> Trollceptor Leaves ---> TCU Returns to non RF after 4 hours. (No action needed) Trollceptor RF TCU ---> Trollceptor Engages Sov Node (Need 1 caracal for every 4 Trollceptors per constellation assuming occupancy 40 minute bonus) what does the tcu have to do with it, you can make timers for ihubs and stations too if anything the tcu is the least vulnerable to trollceptors Same deal, if something is RF'd by a trollceptor, and then the inty ignores the "sov pimples" (your stated concern), the RF'd structure (station, IHub, TCU, w/e) returns to a non RF state at the end of 4 hours. If, as you say, you aren't discussing the trollceptor attacking "sov pimples", then you're literally worrying about having to take no action whatsoever, as any attack that isn't followed by a bout of pimple popping does absolutely nothing. You must be really thinking that the posters here are so intellectually challenged that, they won't see the "saturate contestant warnings with troll ceptors and other assorted non-commit, cheap ships and then choose an attack one region to prevent the defender from responding even if they are capable to" behind your "troll ceptors are okay" shill post. Did you really think that nobody would be able to call out what you are actually hoping for? Or perhaps you were hoping to conquer sovereign null with no serious commitment of assets and resources without giving the opponent a feasible chance to respond?

Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 608	Posted - 2015.03.09 19:52:54 - [631] - Quote PotatoOverdose wrote: 1 bil to you if you link me a lone ceptor fit to lock to 250km (and that fit isn't shopped). Soooo much ignorance of basic mechanics in this thread. obviously i can't do 250km, nor did i ever state that you could you don't need to lock to 250km to be effective a malediction's 110km is plenty of buffer
PotatoOverdose Royal Black Watch Highlanders DARKNESS. 2634	Posted - 2015.03.09 19:53:02 - [632] - Quote Promiscuous Female wrote: PotatoOverdose wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: the sov pimples in this discussion strictly serve as the punishment for not dedicating a disproportionate amount of manpower to countering a single trollceptor every single day You're backtracking. Your perl script really needs some love. Promiscuous Female wrote: you're talking about capture node pimples, not the initial rf timer, which is all that i have ever been talking about throughout this entire thread You mention no punishment here, only the initial RF timer. arguing semantics doesn't really help you here But your perl script! Winning the thread! Rekt.
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 608	Posted - 2015.03.09 19:53:41 - [633] - Quote but wait a cerberus can hit a malediction standing still from 110km away, uh ohhhhhhh oh wait the interceptor has dscan
Ranger 1 Ranger Corp Vae. Victis. 6167	Posted - 2015.03.09 19:54:47 - [634] - Quote Promiscuous Female wrote: Ranger 1 wrote: Glad to hear it. Not that you did of course... as that was far from it's primary point. But you knew that already didn't you? A little secret... so does everyone else. nah, your post was "you want good fights yet you do all this crap that prevents you from getting them thus you are a hypocrite" when good fights are not really on our list of desires I'm sorry, WHAT? Okay, I'll be gentle. Let me refresh your memory. Quote: I'll quit yanking your chain now, because yes, you make it easy. However you posted this... Quote: because if we can reduce the headache for us and make the system actually livable for people who are not us we achieve what we in the biz like to call "objective benefit" we can occasionally get what we want without it necessarily coming at the expense of everyone else, weird as it is to see written I will be the first to state that on a very LARGE number of occasions Goons have spoken out against certain mechanics and proposed changes even with those changes might have benefited them (or at least hurt them less extensively than others) if they felt those changes would harm the game overall. And on those many, frequent, occasions I applaud you... often adding my personal support when you were being dismissed by most as merely trolling or seeking to feather your own nest. I'll also state that I'm not fond of how frequently cepters will be used to troll sov if left as things are now. I much prefer it require at least a little more commitment (not much though). Ceptor hunting is just an irritating way to spend time. However, the plus side of easily being able to take sov from someone if they can't put up at least a token resistance (one ship per contested unit) is huge... in fact, it is necessary. Finding the correct balance point is the tricky part. However, if you continue to pose your arguments as : We want good fights. Using ceptors doesn't generate good fights. Using ceptors against us won't work. If we take YOUR sov we'll use ceptors, because otherwise there would be a good fight... Then you'll continue to look silly and self serving. Other entities, large and small, are well able to defend sov assets from mass ceptor sperges... assuming they haven't bitten off more sov than they can hold. You have zero advantage in that department. I'm quite sure you can cover more territory than most anyone else, and you well deserve that... but don't try to convince folks that your ceptor spam will be a threat to anyone other than those that bite off more sov than they can cover. Your main threat to other peoples sov is your main combat fleet, as it should be. Ceptor spam is relatively meaningless for anyone but other large entities that over reach themselves. How you could possibly, conceivably, believe that the main point of that post was that you just claimed? I suppose if I were a typical anti-goon poster hell bent of disagreeing with everything you say you could certainly jump to that conclusion. However, that's not the case. I'm often firmly on your side. I'm pointing out that this time around, you are purposefully (and obviously) trying to convince people that this won't harm you nearly as much as it will harm others. That's hogwash and you know it. It's not a good mechanic as is, I heartily agree... but your current line of argument in this is ****-poor and you aren't helping your cause. 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 608	Posted - 2015.03.09 19:55:06 - [635] - Quote PotatoOverdose wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: PotatoOverdose wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: the sov pimples in this discussion strictly serve as the punishment for not dedicating a disproportionate amount of manpower to countering a single trollceptor every single day You're backtracking. Your perl script really needs some love. Promiscuous Female wrote: you're talking about capture node pimples, not the initial rf timer, which is all that i have ever been talking about throughout this entire thread You mention no punishment here, only the initial RF timer. arguing semantics doesn't really help you here But your perl script! Winning the thread! Rekt. nah you can't actually bring forth a valid point for allowing one person to generate disproportionate work to defenders with holdings greater than one system, it's becoming pretty clear
SilentAsTheGrave Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective 70	Posted - 2015.03.09 19:55:10 - [636] - Quote Arrendis wrote: SilentAsTheGrave wrote: Here is what I don't understand: Why are people taking sov of a system they don't want to be active in during their prime time? Someone please tell me the logic behind that. There's a few reasons I can see - resource availability, like moons, or buffer zones, for example. Border Marches have a long history, after all, along with the 'good fences make good neighbors' idea. Or constellation/region choke points. Just because you want to hold an area to exploit its strategic value and resources doesn't mean you want to live there - or that it's capable of supporting efforts to live there. At the same time, there should be ways to make use of that space that actually count as making use of that space, if it's something you're holding for military/industrial value, not residential, if you will. Paying the pilots from the war chest to be active in these systems is out of the question?
PotatoOverdose Royal Black Watch Highlanders DARKNESS. 2634	Posted - 2015.03.09 19:56:43 - [637] - Quote Promiscuous Female wrote: PotatoOverdose wrote: 1 bil to you if you link me a lone ceptor fit to lock to 250km (and that fit isn't shopped). Soooo much ignorance of basic mechanics in this thread. obviously i can't do 250km, nor did i ever state that you could you don't need to lock to 250km to be effective a malediction's 110km is plenty of buffer 185 Dps instantly applied at that range to a moving target at 5km/s says no. Am I winning thread now?
Eli Apol Pro Synergy 342	Posted - 2015.03.09 19:56:56 - [638] - Quote Promiscuous Female wrote: PotatoOverdose wrote: 1 bil to you if you link me a lone ceptor fit to lock to 250km (and that fit isn't shopped). Soooo much ignorance of basic mechanics in this thread. obviously i can't do 250km, nor did i ever state that you could you don't need to lock to 250km to be effective a malediction's 110km is plenty of buffer 4x countered (still got rigs, highslots and a lowslot to spare) http://i.imgur.com/eyMzXd8.jpg
PotatoOverdose Royal Black Watch Highlanders DARKNESS. 2635	Posted - 2015.03.09 19:58:55 - [639] - Quote Eli Apol wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: PotatoOverdose wrote: 1 bil to you if you link me a lone ceptor fit to lock to 250km (and that fit isn't shopped). Soooo much ignorance of basic mechanics in this thread. obviously i can't do 250km, nor did i ever state that you could you don't need to lock to 250km to be effective a malediction's 110km is plenty of buffer 4x countered (still got rigs, highslots and a lowslot to spare) http://i.imgur.com/eyMzXd8.jpg E-Rekt. The perl script is failing.
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 608	Posted - 2015.03.09 19:59:11 - [640] - Quote Ranger 1 wrote: I'm sorry, WHAT? Okay, I'll be gentle. Let me refresh your memory. Quote: I'll quit yanking your chain now, because yes, you make it easy. However you posted this... Quote: because if we can reduce the headache for us and make the system actually livable for people who are not us we achieve what we in the biz like to call "objective benefit" we can occasionally get what we want without it necessarily coming at the expense of everyone else, weird as it is to see written End Quote I will be the first to state that on a very LARGE number of occasions Goons have spoken out against certain mechanics and proposed changes even with those changes might have benefited them (or at least hurt them less extensively than others) if they felt those changes would harm the game overall. And on those many, frequent, occasions I applaud you... often adding my personal support when you were being dismissed by most as merely trolling or seeking to feather your own nest. I'll also state that I'm not fond of how frequently cepters will be used to troll sov if left as things are now. I much prefer it require at least a little more commitment (not much though). Ceptor hunting is just an irritating way to spend time. However, the plus side of easily being able to take sov from someone if they can't put up at least a token resistance (one ship per contested unit) is huge... in fact, it is necessary. Finding the correct balance point is the tricky part. However, if you continue to pose your arguments as : We want good fights. Using ceptors doesn't generate good fights. Using ceptors against us won't work. If we take YOUR sov we'll use ceptors, because otherwise there would be a good fight... Then you'll continue to look silly and self serving. Other entities, large and small, are well able to defend sov assets from mass ceptor sperges... assuming they haven't bitten off more sov than they can hold. You have zero advantage in that department. I'm quite sure you can cover more territory than most anyone else, and you well deserve that... but don't try to convince folks that your ceptor spam will be a threat to anyone other than those that bite off more sov than they can cover. Your main threat to other peoples sov is your main combat fleet, as it should be. Ceptor spam is relatively meaningless for anyone but other large entities that over reach themselves. How you could possibly, conceivably, believe that the main point of that post was that you just claimed? I suppose if I were a typical anti-goon poster hell bent of disagreeing with everything you say you could certainly jump to that conclusion. However, that's not the case. I'm often firmly on your side. I'm pointing out that this time around, you are purposefully (and obviously) trying to convince people that this won't harm you nearly as much as it will harm others. That's hogwash and you know it. It's not a good mechanic as is, I heartily agree... but your current line of argument in this is **-poor and you aren't helping your cause. nah, it's exactly as I said here's the operative point of your post Quote:** However, if you continue to pose your arguments as : We want good fights. Using ceptors doesn't generate good fights. Using ceptors against us won't work. If we take YOUR sov we'll use ceptors, because otherwise there would be a good fight... Then you'll continue to look silly and self serving. that is the part where you call me a hypocrite because i and mine clearly want "good fights" then there's a line about holding more sov than you can control which is too nebulous to actually be an argument because who decides how much sov is too much to hold so yeah not convinced

Arrendis GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 313	Posted - 2015.03.09 20:00:04 - [641] - Quote SilentAsTheGrave wrote: Arrendis wrote: SilentAsTheGrave wrote: Here is what I don't understand: Why are people taking sov of a system they don't want to be active in during their prime time? Someone please tell me the logic behind that. There's a few reasons I can see - resource availability, like moons, or buffer zones, for example. Border Marches have a long history, after all, along with the 'good fences make good neighbors' idea. Or constellation/region choke points. Just because you want to hold an area to exploit its strategic value and resources doesn't mean you want to live there - or that it's capable of supporting efforts to live there. At the same time, there should be ways to make use of that space that actually count as making use of that space, if it's something you're holding for military/industrial value, not residential, if you will. Paying the pilots from the war chest to be active in these systems is out of the question? Certainly not - and that might well be what happens. But you did ask why you'd take sov in a system nobody wants to be active in. ;) The easiest way to pay them, of course, would be to allow alliances to set tax rates per system.
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 608	Posted - 2015.03.09 20:02:01 - [642] - Quote PotatoOverdose wrote: 185 Dps instantly applied at that range to a moving target at 5km/s says no. Am I winning thread now? Edit: For that matter, a loki can get 2.4k alpha at 110km that will track a sebo fit malediction perfectly at that range. Eli Apol wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: PotatoOverdose wrote: 1 bil to you if you link me a lone ceptor fit to lock to 250km (and that fit isn't shopped). Soooo much ignorance of basic mechanics in this thread. obviously i can't do 250km, nor did i ever state that you could you don't need to lock to 250km to be effective a malediction's 110km is plenty of buffer 4x countered (still got rigs, highslots and a lowslot to spare) http://i.imgur.com/eyMzXd8.jpg both of these suffer from the problem where the ship attacking the interceptor is somehow able to keep the interceptor inside of its optimal at any point interceptors get to, y'know, move, especially when they see long range turret ships on dscan eft warrioring is nice and all but attacking ships that politely sit inside a turret wielding ship's optimal just doesn't happen when the targeted ship can move freely re: the maulus, great, you stopped one RF event, interceptor disengages and uses its superior warp speed to get to another one
Tycho VI Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective 6	Posted - 2015.03.09 20:02:05 - [643] - Quote Tycho VI wrote: afkalt wrote: Trollceptors are a myth do not buy it. They'll be shattered by missile boats. The problem with interceptors being fitted with the Entosis isn't the couple troll ceptors that will be going around space. It is the fact that a good 40 of them can leave the system of Amarr in Highsec and they can literally be deep in Cobalt Edge or Esoteria within 15-20 mins. Due to being interdiction nullified, they can move very quickly throughout new eden on short notice. I believe that this would not be an issue some years ago when interceptors were not interdiction nullified. Having strategically places bubbles on gates should be a viable method of defending your space by giving some time to see the attack coming. This should not be a realistic method of taking sov, having a kitey hit squad pick a blip on the map to go hit anywhere in new eden within 5 mins of making the decision
Eli Apol Pro Synergy 342	Posted - 2015.03.09 20:03:06 - [644] - Quote Promiscuous Female wrote: both of these suffer from the problem where the ship attacking the interceptor is somehow able to keep the interceptor inside of its optimal at any point interceptors get to, y'know, move, especially when they see long range turret ships on dscan eft warrioring is nice and all but attacking ships that politely sit inside a turret wielding ship's optimal just doesn't happen when the targeted ship can move freely I just sit at zero and sensor damp you...you lose lock and your cycle is reset whilst mine, being at zero, continues ticking. I have no need to chase you.
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 608	Posted - 2015.03.09 20:03:30 - [645] - Quote Eli Apol wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: both of these suffer from the problem where the ship attacking the interceptor is somehow able to keep the interceptor inside of its optimal at any point interceptors get to, y'know, move, especially when they see long range turret ships on dscan eft warrioring is nice and all but attacking ships that politely sit inside a turret wielding ship's optimal just doesn't happen when the targeted ship can move freely I just sit at zero and sensor damp you...you lose lock and your cycle is reset whilst mine, being at zero, continues ticking. I have no need to chase you. i move to another objective
Alavaria Fera GoonWaffe 6576	Posted - 2015.03.09 20:03:39 - [646] - Quote Promiscuous Female wrote: Acuma wrote: If a single inty can take sovereignty uncontested, it's probably an unused system the defender shouldn't have sovereignty over anyways....working as intended? How far can one inty go in 12 minutes when they are alerted to you RFing? we aren't even into the "lost sov object" phase of the discussion yet but thank you for your off-topic contribution laced with talking points about unused sov These talking points are the best ^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears. Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
FT Diomedes The Graduates Forged of Fire 858	Posted - 2015.03.09 20:04:01 - [647] - Quote All these proponents of the system keep thinking in terms of a 1v1. "I counter your off-grid boosted trollceptor with my Cerberus and my cyno alt in a Maulus." Think about this system in the context of defending one constellation with a small alliance. Assume a small alliance (Alliance A) with a maximum of 100 players active in a given time zone. Assume a typical 0.0 constellation with six systems (three stations). In our example, there is only a single entry gate to the constellation - should be optimum terrain to defend. Now, never mind the fact that 100 active players in six systems is going to be cramped. You want us to actually live in the space, right? So, none of these characters is making their ISK from highsec incursion running, or FW, or any way that takes them away from their space. Let's assume these are unusually unselfish people who don't mind running the worse anomalies, "just because it's for the good of the whole." They even mine to raise the index. Alliance A is happily doing their thing in this space. They rat, they mine, they build, they roam, they do home defense. In the current sovereignty system, they can join with friendly alliances nearby to defend a critical timer. The local occupants in nearby NPC space provide lots of small gang content, but are not a threat to their ownership of the system. Then one day Alliance B gets together 200 pilots and decides to use Alliance A as a punching bag. They move to the nearby NPC space and set up a staging area. The attack comes quickly and swiftly in the form of a 150-pilot interceptor gang. It shows up in Alliance A's prime time and by some miracle every single active member of Alliance A is online, active on comms, and has all the ships needed for a fight. Alliance B jumps into Alliance A's space and quickly begins entosising everything they can. Alliance A has 15 different structures to defend - 3 stations, six TCU's, and six IHubs. Now is where the fun [broken] part starts. Alliance A has several possible strategies: (1) A disregards the dictum that "he who defends everywhere, defends no where." A attempts to play a perfect defense and puts 6-7 pilots at each structure. A has to put larger ships at each position in order to compensate. Once Alliance A has committed to defending each structure, Alliance B brings in another 50 pilots in Ishtars and wrecks each one in short order. Alliance A tries to regroup and form up to meet the Ishtar fleet, but the Ishtar fleet runs whenever this happens. This goes on for four hours or until Alliance A finally loses all the timers. Even if, through some miracle, Alliance A holds on for four hours of this nonsense and manages to save half the timers, but has still lost seven. In that case, in 48 hours, they now have 35 separate structures to defend (spread throughout the constellation). (2) A tries for a middle ground and chooses to defend the three station systems: 3 stations, 3 TCU's, and 3 IHubs. With only 9 structures, A can now put 10-12 pilots per structure. Alliance B quickly reinforces the other three systems, then uses the mobility advantage to hold A in place while it brings in the 50 Ishtars. Even if Alliance A masses all the pilots in a given system, they are still dealing with 50 Ishtars and 150 interceptors. Alliance A loses tons of tackle ships trying to hold down the Ishtars, while B warps around at will, kiting the heavier Alliance A fleet and hitting the undefended structures whenever they can. Once again, if through some miracle, Alliance A wins half the timers, they still have 25 timers (spread throughout the constellation) to defend in 48 hours. (3) A chooses to defend only one system. They put everything into defending the station in one system. B wins all the timers that A forfeits. They then reship into a proper 200-person fleet and beat Alliance A at the station, unless A has lots of experienced pilots in capital ships. In which case A commits everything to hold that one station. B now has tons of timers; A has temporarily defended the one station. The next day, B can threaten the station, and any other remaining structures. 48 hours later... when all those timers come out, the same basic thing happens again. B uses numbers and mobility to beat A. Or, option (4) A realizes this is stupid and moves to the nearest NPC station. Most of the members start living off ninja-ratting, NPC missions, and exploration. No one bothers upgrading the I-Hubs, so the anomaly ratting is terrible. Mining and industry are essentially non-existent (who builds a factory in a wartorn wasteland?). People start spending more time running Incursions in high sec or FW in low sec, which fragments the alliance and tears apart the social bonds that hold it together. Without owning space, A starts to bleed off members who want to be members of a 0.0 alliance that owns space. Some move to other alliances... In other words, Goons get even bigger. Others stop playing at all. Each day, as fewer people log in to comms, it becomes less fun to be there. A dies and Eve loses a few more subscribers. Yes, Dominion sovereignty might not be perfect, but it is a damn site better than the above. The offensive power of Fozzie Sovereignty is completely out of balance. The defender has to be able to defend everywhere, but has no opportunity to fortify or entrench his position. Some might say, "but the same thing will happen now!" This is simply untrue. For one, in Dominion, the offense has to commit significant assets to stage an attack. Yes, if someone brings fifty supers to the fight, A may have a problem. But if fifty supers come to the fight, A can request help from friendly alliance C and we get a big fight, or a massive blue-ball fest (that at least has the advantage of only being once, not every day). In Fozzieland, if C tries to help A against B, D will entosis C's stuff. And don't forget that anyone who comes to help probably gets Space Aids. Thank you, Fozzie. The Greatest Ship Ever. Credit to Shahfluffers.
Eli Apol Pro Synergy 342	Posted - 2015.03.09 20:04:37 - [648] - Quote Promiscuous Female wrote: i move to another objective Good, meanwhile I recap this one at upto 4x the speed because of my defensive indices. So you're against a 4x timer as well remember?
Acuma Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic 1	Posted - 2015.03.09 20:04:55 - [649] - Quote Promiscuous Female wrote: Eli Apol wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: both of these suffer from the problem where the ship attacking the interceptor is somehow able to keep the interceptor inside of its optimal at any point interceptors get to, y'know, move, especially when they see long range turret ships on dscan eft warrioring is nice and all but attacking ships that politely sit inside a turret wielding ship's optimal just doesn't happen when the targeted ship can move freely I just sit at zero and sensor damp you...you lose lock and your cycle is reset whilst mine, being at zero, continues ticking. I have no need to chase you. i move to another objective So you lose, and will lose again to another frigate or inty. You will continue this game of flying around accomplishing nothing for hours on end.....congrats, you won eve.
Leisha Miranen The Alabaster Albatross Eternal Pretorian Alliance 2	Posted - 2015.03.09 20:05:37 - [650] - Quote Alavaria Fera wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: [quote=Acuma]If a single inty can take sovereignty uncontested, it's probably an unused system the defender shouldn't have sovereignty over anyways....working as intended? How far can one inty go in 12 minutes when they are alerted to you RFing? Or more likely they've just logged on in their AU TZ with five other guys and the rest of eve is super quiet. I've been through some of the busiest areas of null in the middle of the night and not seen a soul. Not because it's unused space, but because human beings need sleep so we don't die \o/

Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 608	Posted - 2015.03.09 20:05:43 - [651] - Quote Eli Apol wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: i move to another objective Good, meanwhile I recap this one at upto 4x the speed because of my defensive indices. So you're against a 4x timer as well remember? okay? i am still out there generating timers, demanding a response while not being actually catchable while you have to recap, find where I am, and waddle your ass out there with your crappy warp speed
Eli Apol Pro Synergy 342	Posted - 2015.03.09 20:06:29 - [652] - Quote Promiscuous Female wrote: Eli Apol wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: i move to another objective Good, meanwhile I recap this one at upto 4x the speed because of my defensive indices. So you're against a 4x timer as well remember? okay? i am still out there generating timers, demanding a response while not being actually catchable while you have to recap, find where I am, and waddle your ass out there with your crappy warp speed And each of your little 1/4 of the time it takes a defender timers means you're wasting 4x as much of your own time as you are of a defenders?
Ranger 1 Ranger Corp Vae. Victis. 6168	Posted - 2015.03.09 20:06:44 - [653] - Quote Promiscuous Female wrote: Ranger 1 wrote: I'm sorry, WHAT? Okay, I'll be gentle. Let me refresh your memory. Quote: I'll quit yanking your chain now, because yes, you make it easy. However you posted this... Quote: because if we can reduce the headache for us and make the system actually livable for people who are not us we achieve what we in the biz like to call "objective benefit" we can occasionally get what we want without it necessarily coming at the expense of everyone else, weird as it is to see written End Quote I will be the first to state that on a very LARGE number of occasions Goons have spoken out against certain mechanics and proposed changes even with those changes might have benefited them (or at least hurt them less extensively than others) if they felt those changes would harm the game overall. And on those many, frequent, occasions I applaud you... often adding my personal support when you were being dismissed by most as merely trolling or seeking to feather your own nest. I'll also state that I'm not fond of how frequently cepters will be used to troll sov if left as things are now. I much prefer it require at least a little more commitment (not much though). Ceptor hunting is just an irritating way to spend time. However, the plus side of easily being able to take sov from someone if they can't put up at least a token resistance (one ship per contested unit) is huge... in fact, it is necessary. Finding the correct balance point is the tricky part. However, if you continue to pose your arguments as : We want good fights. Using ceptors doesn't generate good fights. Using ceptors against us won't work. If we take YOUR sov we'll use ceptors, because otherwise there would be a good fight... Then you'll continue to look silly and self serving. Other entities, large and small, are well able to defend sov assets from mass ceptor sperges... assuming they haven't bitten off more sov than they can hold. You have zero advantage in that department. I'm quite sure you can cover more territory than most anyone else, and you well deserve that... but don't try to convince folks that your ceptor spam will be a threat to anyone other than those that bite off more sov than they can cover. Your main threat to other peoples sov is your main combat fleet, as it should be. Ceptor spam is relatively meaningless for anyone but other large entities that over reach themselves. How you could possibly, conceivably, believe that the main point of that post was that you just claimed? I suppose if I were a typical anti-goon poster hell bent of disagreeing with everything you say you could certainly jump to that conclusion. However, that's not the case. I'm often firmly on your side. I'm pointing out that this time around, you are purposefully (and obviously) trying to convince people that this won't harm you nearly as much as it will harm others. That's hogwash and you know it. It's not a good mechanic as is, I heartily agree... but your current line of argument in this is **-poor and you aren't helping your cause. nah, it's exactly as I said here's the operative point of your post Quote:** However, if you continue to pose your arguments as : We want good fights. Using ceptors doesn't generate good fights. Using ceptors against us won't work. If we take YOUR sov we'll use ceptors, because otherwise there would be a good fight... Then you'll continue to look silly and self serving. that is the part where you call me a hypocrite because i and mine clearly want "good fights" then there's a line about holding more sov than you can control which is too nebulous to actually be an argument because who decides how much sov is too much to hold so yeah not convinced So, the one quip in there that you can argue against is your focus. Meanwhile the rather obvious statement about holding sov in more territory than can be covered is "too nebulous "? You can do far better than this, perhaps you should let Baltec1 take over... he's a lot better at this and actually thinks about what he's saying first. View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents.
Acuma Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic 1	Posted - 2015.03.09 20:06:57 - [654] - Quote Leisha Miranen wrote: Alavaria Fera wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: [quote=Acuma]If a single inty can take sovereignty uncontested, it's probably an unused system the defender shouldn't have sovereignty over anyways....working as intended? How far can one inty go in 12 minutes when they are alerted to you RFing? Or more likely they've just logged on in their TZ on the other side of the world with five other buddies and the rest of eve is super quiet. I've been through some of the busiest areas of null in the middle of the night and not seen a soul. Not because it's unused space, but because human beings need sleep so we don't die \o/ But you have a 4 hour window set by the defender to do this.....who cares if you fly around a trollcepto when it can't even activate the link on anything?
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 608	Posted - 2015.03.09 20:07:15 - [655] - Quote i am running out of ways to describe the central point of an interceptor not being able to be caught and forcing a disproportionate response to its efforts hope you guys are ready for even more repetitive posting than we already have
Leisha Miranen The Alabaster Albatross Eternal Pretorian Alliance 2	Posted - 2015.03.09 20:07:25 - [656] - Quote Acuma wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: Eli Apol wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: both of these suffer from the problem where the ship attacking the interceptor is somehow able to keep the interceptor inside of its optimal at any point interceptors get to, y'know, move, especially when they see long range turret ships on dscan eft warrioring is nice and all but attacking ships that politely sit inside a turret wielding ship's optimal just doesn't happen when the targeted ship can move freely I just sit at zero and sensor damp you...you lose lock and your cycle is reset whilst mine, being at zero, continues ticking. I have no need to chase you. i move to another objective So you lose, and will lose again to another frigate or inty. You will continue this game of flying around accomplishing nothing for hours on end.....congrats, you won eve. Umm......aint nothing gon' catch a good inty pilot who doesn't want to be caught, save for an insta-locker on a gate (which then only has a 50% chance since it's down to server tick at that scan resolution).
EvilweaselFinance BUTTECORP INC Goonswarm Federation 640	Posted - 2015.03.09 20:08:02 - [657] - Quote i feel that the unassailable correctness of our position is well illustrated by how even the most fervent the sky is red posters in this thread cannot come up with a situation where the interceptor is actually at risk and instead rely on pretending that interceptors can't change systems when your entire defense is that "well of course you can't kill the interceptor but you can force it to spend thirty seconds moving to another objective" you're sort of conceding that you have no good points to make
MASSADEATH MASS A DEATH Mordus Angels 67	Posted - 2015.03.09 20:08:05 - [658] - Quote fleet report of what the current SOV meta creates.... http://scanner.black-legion.us/index.php?ino=161760 it just rolled thru our home system of 5z and RF'd a bunch of structures a few min ago. how is that meta anymore unfair than the fear of troll ceptors? and the possible new SOV mechanics that are being discussed? at the end of the day..the old mechanics must die , and new ones at least given a chance... If these large groups are as good as they say they are , they should be able to withstand anything... so why even worry?
Freelancer117 So you want to be a Hero 276	Posted - 2015.03.09 20:08:31 - [659] - Quote I would love to see the Entosis Link fit on Battlecruiser hulls or Above only, because of (made up) lore reasons But then you have to balance SB's beforehand and ignore the opponents of cloaky ships can no longer decloak ships crowd. source: https://www.pandemic-legion.com/forums/showthread.php?16868-CCP-Announce-EVE-Online-Apocrypha-1-1-deployment-Thursday-16th-April-2009 The players will make a better version of the game, then CCP initially plans. http://eve-radio.com//images/photos/3419/223/34afa0d7998f0a9a86f737d6.jpg GÇÖChilde Roland to the Dark Tower came.GÇÖ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nY3oMRLfArU
PotatoOverdose Royal Black Watch Highlanders DARKNESS. 2636	Posted - 2015.03.09 20:08:50 - [660] - Quote Promiscuous Female wrote: PotatoOverdose wrote: 185 Dps instantly applied at that range to a moving target at 5km/s says no. Am I winning thread now? Edit: For that matter, a loki can get 2.4k alpha at 110km that will track a sebo fit malediction perfectly at that range. Eli Apol wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: PotatoOverdose wrote: 1 bil to you if you link me a lone ceptor fit to lock to 250km (and that fit isn't shopped). Soooo much ignorance of basic mechanics in this thread. obviously i can't do 250km, nor did i ever state that you could you don't need to lock to 250km to be effective a malediction's 110km is plenty of buffer 4x countered (still got rigs, highslots and a lowslot to spare) http://i.imgur.com/eyMzXd8.jpg both of these suffer from the problem where the ship attacking the interceptor is somehow able to keep the interceptor inside of its optimal at any point interceptors get to, y'know, move, especially when they see long range turret ships on dscan eft warrioring is nice and all but attacking ships that politely sit inside a turret wielding ship's optimal just doesn't happen when the targeted ship can move freely re: the maulus, great, you stopped one RF event, interceptor disengages and uses its superior warp speed to get to another one The eagle has a 50-150km engagement range with thorium. Load Javelin and you can hit him down to 20km. Less then that and you have to deal with drones, webs, scrams, and medium neuts. That's a total engagement profile from 0 to 150km against your 110km-locking sebo fit malediction. Done. Oh and the maulus? The maulus keeps you damped to ** at ANY range you can lock at and kills you with frigate turrets, or better yet, warrior II's (if you get within 45km) which you won't be able to lock because damps. But you're CFC, you should know all about that from F* You Fleet.

Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 608	Posted - 2015.03.09 20:08:51 - [661] - Quote Eli Apol wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: Eli Apol wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: i move to another objective Good, meanwhile I recap this one at upto 4x the speed because of my defensive indices. So you're against a 4x timer as well remember? okay? i am still out there generating timers, demanding a response while not being actually catchable while you have to recap, find where I am, and waddle your ass out there with your crappy warp speed And each of your little 1/4 of the time it takes a defender timers means you're wasting 4x as much of your own time as you are of a defenders? 1337 trolling considering that i don't have to stay on grid for the entire 10 minutes by choosing to abandon the objective and disengage in at worst 2 minutes to continue poking while you have to stay there for longer, yes, i am wasting a shitload more time of yours than I am mine
Ranger 1 Ranger Corp Vae. Victis. 6168	Posted - 2015.03.09 20:08:56 - [662] - Quote Promiscuous Female wrote: Eli Apol wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: i move to another objective Good, meanwhile I recap this one at upto 4x the speed because of my defensive indices. So you're against a 4x timer as well remember? okay? i am still out there generating timers, demanding a response while not being actually catchable while you have to recap, find where I am, and waddle your ass out there with your crappy warp speed Sigh. Or they plant a disposable alt in a crappy tanked Cruiser at each sov structure and promptly ignore you. Rough huh? View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents.
EvilweaselFinance BUTTECORP INC Goonswarm Federation 640	Posted - 2015.03.09 20:09:15 - [663] - Quote "having to risk a single ship will be an insurmountable risk for us" - moa, npc characters, etc if risking a single ship to try to place sov in reinforced is too big a risk for you even highsec isn't for you, it's time to move back to wow
Acuma Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic 1	Posted - 2015.03.09 20:10:41 - [664] - Quote Leisha Miranen wrote: Acuma wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: Eli Apol wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: both of these suffer from the problem where the ship attacking the interceptor is somehow able to keep the interceptor inside of its optimal at any point interceptors get to, y'know, move, especially when they see long range turret ships on dscan eft warrioring is nice and all but attacking ships that politely sit inside a turret wielding ship's optimal just doesn't happen when the targeted ship can move freely I just sit at zero and sensor damp you...you lose lock and your cycle is reset whilst mine, being at zero, continues ticking. I have no need to chase you. i move to another objective So you lose, and will lose again to another frigate or inty. You will continue this game of flying around accomplishing nothing for hours on end.....congrats, you won eve. Umm......aint nothing gon' catch a good inty pilot who doesn't want to be caught, save for an insta-locker on a gate (which then only has a 50% chance since it's down to server tick at that scan resolution). Umm....so a good inty pilot is going to spend hours and hours a day just warping around accomplishing nothing but retreating. Who cares, eventually that will become mind numbingly dull and the attacker will go back home......since it only takes one inty to counter them.
EvilweaselFinance BUTTECORP INC Goonswarm Federation 640	Posted - 2015.03.09 20:10:52 - [665] - Quote those fat lazy empires must pay, and i will be the one to make them suffer unless of course i have to risk a t1 cruiser, if i have to do that i'm going back to masturbatory fantasies about the next patch soz
Alavaria Fera GoonWaffe 6576	Posted - 2015.03.09 20:11:15 - [666] - Quote MASSADEATH wrote: fleet report of what the current SOV meta creates.... http://scanner.black-legion.us/index.php?ino=161760 it just rolled thru our home system of 5z and RF'd a bunch of structures a few min ago. how is that meta anymore unfair than the fear of troll ceptors? and the possible new SOV mechanics that are being discussed? at the end of the day..the old mechanics must die , and new ones at least given a chance... If these large groups are as good as they say they are , they should be able to withstand anything... so why even worry? But you live in npc, not sov space? Wait are you crying because things in your home are being shot? You definitely want to troll sov, not hold it. ^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears. Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
Eli Apol Pro Synergy 342	Posted - 2015.03.09 20:11:45 - [667] - Quote Promiscuous Female wrote: considering that i don't have to stay on grid for the entire 10 minutes by choosing to abandon the objective and disengage in at worst 2 minutes to continue poking while you have to stay there for longer, yes, i am wasting a shitload more time of yours than I am mine No, you'd have to stay on grid 40mins if you wanted to RF a single structure in a well defended system. And you'd get countered in the 38th minute by an EWAR frig at zero who'd then just sit there for 10. Epic trolls m8, you sure showed them.
Tycho VI Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective 6	Posted - 2015.03.09 20:13:02 - [668] - Quote Freelancer117 wrote: I would love to see the Entosis Link fit on Battlecruiser hulls or Above only, because of (made up) lore reasons But then you have to balance SB's beforehand and ignore the opponents of cloaky ships can no longer decloak ships crowd. source: https://www.pandemic-legion.com/forums/showthread.php?16868-CCP-Announce-EVE-Online-Apocrypha-1-1-deployment-Thursday-16th-April-2009 yeah i more or less imagine entosis being a medium of boarding the structure with stormtroopers....and frigates have just a couple ppl on them :P lore wise
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 608	Posted - 2015.03.09 20:13:35 - [669] - Quote PotatoOverdose wrote: The eagle has a 50-150km engagement range with thorium. Load Javelin and you can hit him down to 20km. Less then that and you have to deal with drones, webs, scrams, and medium neuts. That's a total engagement profile from 0 to 150km against your 110km-locking sebo fit malediction. Done. Oh and the maulus? The maulus keeps you damped to ** at ANY range and kills you with frigate turrets, or better yet, warrior II's (if you get within 45km) which you won't be able to lock because damps. But your CFC, you should know all about that from F* You Fleet. http://i.imgur.com/BubJvXa.png oh yeah that is some sick damage at 150km mmhrm
davet517 Caldari Provisions Caldari State 63	Posted - 2015.03.09 20:13:42 - [670] - 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? You get a notice if your sov's being attacked. The whole point of this is to live in the systems that you claim. Don't live there, don't claim it. If you do live there, you don't need to camp because of one cloaky neut. If the alarms go off, respond. Lots of red-herrings flying around here, but, nobody wants to address the elephant in the room. It's renters, mostly. Renters whose "defense" is to safe up when neuts enter system. Not to mention, shall we say, "auto-renters" that are programmed to do so. Ever lead a roaming gang through the south only to encounter system after system with one nullified tengu that warps to a POS when you enter? Mr. Dave has. It's pretty sad. Systems that are actually occupied and used by people who can fight will have no issue here. This PR blitz is, at least to a large degree, to try to protect absentee landlord income streams.

Alavaria Fera GoonWaffe 6576	Posted - 2015.03.09 20:18:32 - [671] - Quote northern associates will trashtalk in local if you rf their stuff ^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears. Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
PotatoOverdose Royal Black Watch Highlanders DARKNESS. 2636	Posted - 2015.03.09 20:19:00 - [672] - Quote EvilweaselFinance wrote: those fat lazy empires must pay, and i will be the one to make them suffer unless of course i have to risk a t1 cruiser, if i have to do that i'm going back to masturbatory fantasies about the next patch soz The funny thing is, from reading some of the posts against this system, one gets the impression that it's you guys that don't want to commit a single cruiser to defend a constellation. I mean with the 40 minute attacker penalty that comes from actually using your space, 1 caracal can easily hold off 3-4 trollceptors in the "sov pimple" phase. There are things wrong with the proposed sov system, like the 4 hour window - which penalizes entities which consist of players from multiple timezones. I (in the US) like being able to play with people from Germany, the Netherlands, and Australia. That's cool, and the new sov system encourages alliances to divide on national and ethnic lines - which I think sells the eve community short. But interceptors aren't what's wrong with the proposed system. I think Moa just scarred the afktar pilots of the CFC, and now we're just seeing a bit of PTSD. GRRR in-ter-sep-toooor.
EvilweaselFinance BUTTECORP INC Goonswarm Federation 643	Posted - 2015.03.09 20:19:28 - [673] - Quote "my ships attacking sov should not be at risk at all", says the man currently mining in highsec on an alt that has a bio ranting against the idea that anyone can attack his mining barge without being banned from the game
FT Diomedes The Graduates Forged of Fire 858	Posted - 2015.03.09 20:20:05 - [674] - Quote PotatoOverdose wrote: The eagle has a 50-150km engagement range with thorium. Load Javelin and you can hit him down to 20km. Less then that and you have to deal with drones, webs, scrams, and medium neuts. That's a total engagement profile from 0 to 150km against your 110km-locking sebo fit malediction. Done. Oh and the maulus? The maulus keeps you damped to ** at ANY range you can lock at and kills you with frigate turrets, or better yet, warrior II's (if you get within 45km) which you won't be able to lock because damps. But you're CFC, you should know all about that from F* You Fleet. Stop thinking about this as a 1v1. Think of this as fleet versus fleet. How does an alliance defend even a single constellation against an equal or larger force? The Greatest Ship Ever. Credit to Shahfluffers.
EvilweaselFinance BUTTECORP INC Goonswarm Federation 643	Posted - 2015.03.09 20:20:46 - [675] - Quote PotatoOverdose wrote: The funny thing is, from reading some of the posts against this system, one gets the impression that it's you guys that don't want to commit a single cruiser to defend a constellation. we're not afraid to use the cruiser because shooting your ship would entail placing ours at risk what we do not want is a bore-off
Gizznitt Malikite Agony Unleashed Agony Empire 4240	Posted - 2015.03.09 20:21:15 - [676] - Quote FT Diomedes wrote: All these proponents of the system keep thinking in terms of a 1v1. "I counter your off-grid boosted trollceptor with my Cerberus and my cyno alt in a Maulus." Yes, Dominion sovereignty might not be perfect, but it is a damn site better than the above. The offensive power of Fozzie Sovereignty is completely out of balance. The defender has to be able to defend everywhere, but has no opportunity to fortify or entrench his position. Some might say, "but the same thing will happen now!" This is simply untrue. For one, in Dominion, the offense has to commit significant assets to stage an attack. Yes, if someone brings fifty supers to the fight, A may have a problem. But if fifty supers come to the fight, A can request help from friendly alliance C and we get a big fight, or a massive blue-ball fest (that at least has the advantage of only being once, not every day). In Fozzieland, if C tries to help A against B, D will entosis C's stuff. And don't forget that anyone who comes to help probably gets Space Aids. Thank you, Fozzie. Your example is flawed for several reasons: 1.) Small alliance A doesn't hold space in the current sov system. Perhaps big brother coalition C gives them a system (for a fee), but they will never truly own space unless they themselves can bring a huge force to attack. 2.) Alliance A is the underdog, and will lose space against bigger B. So what. They can then attempt to take it back, especially if alliance B doesn't bother to utilize it. Currently, if Big Bad Alliance B takes your sov, you can't do **** about it. 3.) With the 48 hour reinforcement window, Alliance A can call in all the backup they want. It's only a minor change in tactics for them to have an alliance A member in each backup fleet.
Alavaria Fera GoonWaffe 6576	Posted - 2015.03.09 20:21:32 - [677] - Quote Maybe the point is no one can hold sov at all. It would sure shake up something ^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears. Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
EvilweaselFinance BUTTECORP INC Goonswarm Federation 643	Posted - 2015.03.09 20:21:53 - [678] - Quote "those goons don't want to be orbiting a structure doing nothing for four hours, this is the same as our insistence on never having a single ship at risk of death"
MASSADEATH MASS A DEATH Mordus Angels 67	Posted - 2015.03.09 20:22:02 - [679] - Quote Alavaria Fera wrote: MASSADEATH wrote: fleet report of what the current SOV meta creates.... http://scanner.black-legion.us/index.php?ino=161760 it just rolled thru our home system of 5z and RF'd a bunch of structures a few min ago. how is that meta anymore unfair than the fear of troll ceptors? and the possible new SOV mechanics that are being discussed? at the end of the day..the old mechanics must die , and new ones at least given a chance... If these large groups are as good as they say they are , they should be able to withstand anything... so why even worry? But you live in npc, not sov space? Wait are you crying because things in your home are being shot? You definitely want to troll sov, not hold it. No I think it opens up options to smaller groups... perhaps on the level of... you roll thru our SOV with your blob fleet.... we RF 20 of your systems ..basically an eye, for 2 legs a hand and 2 ears who knows what negotiation powers the new sov mechanics will open up... scorched earth is a viable tactic...and can bring about change as well....
Mac Chicovski Capts Deranged Cavaliers Gentlemen's.Club 5	Posted - 2015.03.09 20:22:03 - [680] - Quote There should be some kind of limitation for non-sovholders from just spending all their time bugging sovholders, but not actually planning to take sov. As it stands, there is no reason for either individuals or small roams, as well as BL or PL or a WH group to not just come and entos all some smaller organization's sov. There is presently little or no risk for the attacker: their losses are trivial compared to their potential gains, and the defender has to respond. One way of dealing with the totally uncommitted attacker is to give the module reasonable fitting requirements or make them use a links slot: 1) Making T1 Entosis links require CPU and PG similar to, say, a 10mn MWD, and T2 Entosis equal to a 100mn MWD would be a decent way to avoid unserious attackers disproportionately affecting sov battles. 2) Another way to go would be making them use a command links capable ship. As I think about it, this seems to have several things going for it: * It would require the 'command links' subsystem on a T3 to fit, which helps limit the power of T3. * Maybe you could give command ships an Entosis bonus to CPU and PG would make them more used in sov fights. The thing I expect to be a tactical and strategic issue with defending sov is spending 4 hours of prime time on defense across all systems, not because it generates 4 hours of good fights, but because if you ignore anything, all sov being equally vulnerable if not equally valuable, you just set yourself up for a more serious problems. I mean, for any smaller alliances, in their prime time, people have to do their PvP stuff (roams, sov stuff), and have to do their PvE (ratting, mining, anoms, sites, etc). You're essentially shutting down all PvE during the 4 hours every day to deal with non-committed attackers. 1) Instead or in addition to taking longer to do, one way of dealing with this would be to decrease the window for 'central' systems (surrounded by sov) with high index to, say, 1 hour a day, and make partially connected systems (one but not all gates go to sov) to between 2-3 hours, and put disconnected systems at 4 hours window. 2) How about spawning Defending rats on the capture points, depending on system index. So, you have to deal with any defending forces as well as rats to control a capture point. 3) Or, spawning regular rats on a capture point in proportion to what's on field, so that defenders can get some PvE value out of it, at a 20-40m per tick per ship level.

davet517 Caldari Provisions Caldari State 64	Posted - 2015.03.09 20:22:04 - [681] - Quote Alavaria Fera wrote: northern associates will trashtalk in local if you rf their stuff That's worth the trip by itself, isn't it?
PotatoOverdose Royal Black Watch Highlanders DARKNESS. 2636	Posted - 2015.03.09 20:22:46 - [682] - Quote FT Diomedes wrote: PotatoOverdose wrote: The eagle has a 50-150km engagement range with thorium. Load Javelin and you can hit him down to 20km. Less then that and you have to deal with drones, webs, scrams, and medium neuts. That's a total engagement profile from 0 to 150km against your 110km-locking sebo fit malediction. Done. Oh and the maulus? The maulus keeps you damped to ** at ANY range you can lock at and kills you with frigate turrets, or better yet, warrior II's (if you get within 45km) which you won't be able to lock because damps. But you're CFC, you should know all about that from F* You Fleet. Stop thinking about this as a 1v1. Think of this as fleet versus fleet. How does an alliance defend even a single constellation against an equal or larger force? A fleet of eagles dunks a fleet of ceptors trying to hold a grid. A fleet of cynabals dunks a ceptor fleet. A fleet of caracals dumps a ceptor fleet. For the full list, go here.
EvilweaselFinance BUTTECORP INC Goonswarm Federation 645	Posted - 2015.03.09 20:22:52 - [683] - Quote MASSADEATH wrote: No I think it opens up options to smaller groups... perhaps on the level of... you roll thru our SOV with your blob fleet.... we RF 20 of your systems ..basically an eye, for 2 legs a hand and 2 ears you don't have sov, and still won't
EvilweaselFinance BUTTECORP INC Goonswarm Federation 645	Posted - 2015.03.09 20:24:33 - [684] - Quote "those goonies should have to orbit everything they own all the time if they don't want to lose their sov" "someone shot at our pos? with ships? well of course we don't dare fight, time to whine about it on eveo"
Trinneth Knights of Nii The 20 Minuters 25	Posted - 2015.03.09 20:26:30 - [685] - Quote xttz wrote: 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 This seems like a promising idea.
PotatoOverdose Royal Black Watch Highlanders DARKNESS. 2637	Posted - 2015.03.09 20:26:53 - [686] - Quote EvilweaselFinance wrote: PotatoOverdose wrote: The funny thing is, from reading some of the posts against this system, one gets the impression that it's you guys that don't want to commit a single cruiser to defend a constellation. we're not afraid to use the cruiser because shooting your ship would entail placing ours at risk what we do not want is a bore-off What we have now is a bore-off. How can this new system be any worse? We're already at 100% at the boredometer for stagnant null and structure shoots. Not that the new sov system is all roses. I rather dislike that it punishes multinational entities and encourages people to congregate based on timezones - that just denigrates everyone's experience. But interceptors aren't the problem here. Obligatory: Grrrrrrrrr In-ter-sep-toooor.
Eli Apol Pro Synergy 343	Posted - 2015.03.09 20:29:35 - [687] - Quote PotatoOverdose wrote: I rather dislike that it punishes multinational entities and encourages people to congregate based on timezones I agree, plenty to say on that matter too once the separate comments are open for it :)
Alavaria Fera GoonWaffe 6576	Posted - 2015.03.09 20:29:36 - [688] - Quote EvilweaselFinance wrote: MASSADEATH wrote: No I think it opens up options to smaller groups... perhaps on the level of... you roll thru our SOV with your blob fleet.... we RF 20 of your systems ..basically an eye, for 2 legs a hand and 2 ears you don't have sov, and still won't that said it is hilarious how much you're whining over your pos getting sieged If moa can kick us out of our sov, then one doubts they can avoid being kicked out of it themselves... ^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears. Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
EvilweaselFinance BUTTECORP INC Goonswarm Federation 647	Posted - 2015.03.09 20:29:37 - [689] - Quote PotatoOverdose wrote: What we have now is a bore-off. How can this new system be any worse? We're already at 100% at the boredometer for stagnant null and structure shoots. our discussion is not about if this or dominion is better, it's if this system is better with or without bore-offs. we are discussing how to improve this system and given that you agree that bore-offs are bad it seems we should both agree that "well you can counter this by doing something equally or more boring so nobody has fun" is not really a great design philosophy
EvilweaselFinance BUTTECORP INC Goonswarm Federation 647	Posted - 2015.03.09 20:30:50 - [690] - Quote "interceptors are not the problem here", says the man who cannot justify why they're not the problem and can only discuss how it is in some sense better than hammering a nail though your ****, an option nobody else considered the alternative

PotatoOverdose Royal Black Watch Highlanders DARKNESS. 2637	Posted - 2015.03.09 20:31:08 - [691] - Quote EvilweaselFinance wrote: PotatoOverdose wrote: What we have now is a bore-off. How can this new system be any worse? We're already at 100% at the boredometer for stagnant null and structure shoots. our discussion is not about if this or dominion is better, it's if this system is better with or without bore-offs. we are discussing how to improve this system and given that you agree that bore-offs are bad it seems we should both agree that "well you can counter this by doing something equally or more boring so nobody has fun" is not really a great design philosophy Sure, but I don't agree that interceptors lead to a bore off. Honestly, I think it's a triumph of game design that so many people still froth at the mouth from the mere mention of the ceptor. Fozzie done good.
Alavaria Fera GoonWaffe 6576	Posted - 2015.03.09 20:31:55 - [692] - Quote EvilweaselFinance wrote: PotatoOverdose wrote: What we have now is a bore-off. How can this new system be any worse? We're already at 100% at the boredometer for stagnant null and structure shoots. our discussion is not about if this or dominion is better, it's if this system is better with or without bore-offs. we are discussing how to improve this system and given that you agree that bore-offs are bad it seems we should both agree that "well you can counter this by doing something equally or more boring so nobody has fun" is not really a great design philosophy Bore-offs are amazing. If more of sov was like that then perhaps there would be less sov ^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears. Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
MASSADEATH MASS A DEATH Mordus Angels 67	Posted - 2015.03.09 20:31:59 - [693] - Quote EvilweaselFinance wrote: MASSADEATH wrote: No I think it opens up options to smaller groups... perhaps on the level of... you roll thru our SOV with your blob fleet.... we RF 20 of your systems ..basically an eye, for 2 legs a hand and 2 ears you don't have sov, and still won't that said it is hilarious how much you're whining over your pos getting sieged we dont care about structures..my point was the size of force being used ..blow em up....whoo hoo... its all you can do.. the real fear you have is how the new mechanics render your blob fleets useless...in the defence area there still is no solution for the blob fleet when attacking any small entity that "tries" (in futility) to hold sov...will just have it removed by one of these large blob fleets..we have no delusions about that. Other than the fun and fights taking and losing it. what it does change however is we can at least at the minimum now disrupt and deny yours as well, where as the current system does not allow for that.. perhaps it will create negotiations for some groups
FT Diomedes The Graduates Forged of Fire 858	Posted - 2015.03.09 20:32:40 - [694] - Quote Gizznitt Malikite wrote: FT Diomedes wrote: All these proponents of the system keep thinking in terms of a 1v1. "I counter your off-grid boosted trollceptor with my Cerberus and my cyno alt in a Maulus." Yes, Dominion sovereignty might not be perfect, but it is a damn site better than the above. The offensive power of Fozzie Sovereignty is completely out of balance. The defender has to be able to defend everywhere, but has no opportunity to fortify or entrench his position. Some might say, "but the same thing will happen now!" This is simply untrue. For one, in Dominion, the offense has to commit significant assets to stage an attack. Yes, if someone brings fifty supers to the fight, A may have a problem. But if fifty supers come to the fight, A can request help from friendly alliance C and we get a big fight, or a massive blue-ball fest (that at least has the advantage of only being once, not every day). In Fozzieland, if C tries to help A against B, D will entosis C's stuff. And don't forget that anyone who comes to help probably gets Space Aids. Thank you, Fozzie. Your example is flawed for several reasons: 1.) Small alliance A doesn't hold space in the current sov system. Perhaps big brother coalition C gives them a system (for a fee), but they will never truly own space unless they themselves can bring a huge force to attack. 2.) Alliance A is the underdog, and will lose space against bigger B. So what. They can then attempt to take it back, especially if alliance B doesn't bother to utilize it. Currently, if Big Bad Alliance B takes your sov, you can't do **** about it. 3.) With the 48 hour reinforcement window, Alliance A can call in all the backup they want. It's only a minor change in tactics for them to have an alliance A member in each backup fleet. (1) Alliance A can hold space in the current system, with big brother coalition C's support. The fee is paid in military service. (2) Then how are small alliances going to gain a foothold? They cannot. They will get roflstomped by anyone large enough to want to destroy their stuff. (3) Alliance A calls for backup from Alliance C. Alliance C moves pilots over. Now honorable third parties D, E, and F, join the fun and hit C's space while they are away. D, E, and F risk nothing, because they come from NPC space or low sec. Or from a coalition so large that it can send off a bunch of pilots during prime time. In short, you will have a lot of stuff burn after this patch. Nothing will be rebuilt. Coalitions will hold the money moons and one or two critical areas where they continue to build supercapitals. Everyone else will get burned out of space in short order. Low sec and NPC nullsec are the real beneficiaries of the new system. The existing coalitions will become larger and more powerful, but 0.0 space on the whole will be more empty. Unless of course, 800k new subscribers suddenly decide to start playing tomorrow and the PCU goes up to 100k. Which all trends indicate won't happen. The Greatest Ship Ever. Credit to Shahfluffers.
SilentAsTheGrave Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective 70	Posted - 2015.03.09 20:33:22 - [695] - Quote Arrendis wrote: SilentAsTheGrave wrote: Here is what I don't understand: Why are people taking sov of a system they don't want to be active in during their prime time? Someone please tell me the logic behind that. There's a few reasons I can see - resource availability, like moons, or buffer zones, for example. Border Marches have a long history, after all, along with the 'good fences make good neighbors' idea. Or constellation/region choke points. Just because you want to hold an area to exploit its strategic value and resources doesn't mean you want to live there - or that it's capable of supporting efforts to live there. At the same time, there should be ways to make use of that space that actually count as making use of that space, if it's something you're holding for military/industrial value, not residential, if you will. Paying the pilots from the war chest to be active in these systems is out of the question?
EvilweaselFinance BUTTECORP INC Goonswarm Federation 647	Posted - 2015.03.09 20:33:28 - [696] - Quote PotatoOverdose wrote: Sure, but I don't agree that interceptors lead to a bore off.] yes but your stubborn refusal to admit reality is not an argument, it's just you sticking your fingers in your ears and posting loudly every solution to interceptors proposed by the "how dare you make me risk a ship" crew leads inexorably to a bore-off because there is no other means of stopping interceptor raids because the ships are not at risk unless the pilot passes out
Eli Apol Pro Synergy 343	Posted - 2015.03.09 20:33:30 - [697] - Quote PotatoOverdose wrote: Sure, but I don't agree that interceptors lead to a bore off. Interceptors when used to try and troll people leads to a bore off which is considerably (upto a factor of 4 times) worse for the people attempting said troll, if used against a suitably prepared defender. Was, I believe, the final result against the perl script.
EvilweaselFinance BUTTECORP INC Goonswarm Federation 647	Posted - 2015.03.09 20:34:16 - [698] - Quote SilentAsTheGrave wrote: Paying the pilots from the war chest to be active in these systems is out of the question? why would we want the game to reward unfun bore-offs where you have to pay people to play the game
Liam Inkuras AQUILA INC Verge of Collapse 1480	Posted - 2015.03.09 20:35:21 - [699] - Quote This thread went downhill following page 1, and is now just repeated sperging. Pls stop I wear my goggles at night. Any spelling/grammatical errors come complimentary with my typing on a phone
Acuma Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic 2	Posted - 2015.03.09 20:36:29 - [700] - Quote Eli Apol wrote: PotatoOverdose wrote: Sure, but I don't agree that interceptors lead to a bore off. Interceptors when used to try and troll people lead to a bore off which is considerably (upto a factor of 4 times) worse for the people attempting said troll, if used against a suitably prepared defender. Was, I believe, the final result against the perl script. +1 It takes one ship 2 minutes to counter a trollceptor......not to mention as you stated you can waste around 35 minutes of their time before doing so. Then it's off to the next system where another frigate does the same things......mmmmm fun stuff!

PotatoOverdose Royal Black Watch Highlanders DARKNESS. 2638	Posted - 2015.03.09 20:37:03 - [701] - Quote EvilweaselFinance wrote: PotatoOverdose wrote: Sure, but I don't agree that interceptors lead to a bore off.] yes but your stubborn refusal to admit reality is not an argument, it's just you sticking your fingers in your ears and posting loudly every solution to interceptors proposed by the "how dare you make me risk a ship" crew leads inexorably to a bore-off because there is no other means of stopping interceptor raids because the ships are not at risk unless the pilot passes out And your stubborn claim that everyone shares your particular views of "Grrrrrrr In-terrr-sep-torrrrrrrr, Grrrrrrrr," or that those views are correct, make for humorous reading material. Obligatory: Grrrrrrr In-terrr-sep-torrrrrrrr, Grrrrrrrr.
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 608	Posted - 2015.03.09 20:37:09 - [702] - Quote Liam Inkuras wrote: This thread went downhill following page 1, and is now just repeated sperging. Pls stop ccp taking a stand on the entosis module's exact fitting and restrictions (if any) would stop the thread dead
Vincent Athena V.I.C.E. 3210	Posted - 2015.03.09 20:37:13 - [703] - Quote PotatoOverdose wrote: EvilweaselFinance wrote: PotatoOverdose wrote: The funny thing is, from reading some of the posts against this system, one gets the impression that it's you guys that don't want to commit a single cruiser to defend a constellation. we're not afraid to use the cruiser because shooting your ship would entail placing ours at risk what we do not want is a bore-off What we have now is a bore-off. How can this new system be any worse? We're already at 100% at the boredometer for stagnant null and structure shoots. ... I remember that just before the last sov change, people were saying "The current system is terrible! Change it, anything is better than the current system!" After the change those same people posted: "I was wrong. This is worse." The boreometer is not anywhere close to 100%. It can always get worse. What we need to do here, now, is see that it does not. Know a Frozen fan? Check this out Frozen fanfiction
Alavaria Fera GoonWaffe 6577	Posted - 2015.03.09 20:37:27 - [704] - Quote EvilweaselFinance wrote: SilentAsTheGrave wrote: Paying the pilots from the war chest to be active in these systems is out of the question? why would we want the game to reward unfun bore-offs where you have to pay people to play the game All it means is that to kill the coalitions you need to nerf their income so that the bore-offs will lead to their bankrupcy and then collapse ^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears. Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 608	Posted - 2015.03.09 20:37:56 - [705] - Quote PotatoOverdose wrote: EvilweaselFinance wrote: PotatoOverdose wrote: Sure, but I don't agree that interceptors lead to a bore off.] yes but your stubborn refusal to admit reality is not an argument, it's just you sticking your fingers in your ears and posting loudly every solution to interceptors proposed by the "how dare you make me risk a ship" crew leads inexorably to a bore-off because there is no other means of stopping interceptor raids because the ships are not at risk unless the pilot passes out And your stubborn claim that everyone shares your particular views of "Grrrrrrr In-terrr-sep-torrrrrrrr, Grrrrrrrr," or that those views are correct, make for humorous reading material. Obligatory: Grrrrrrr In-terrr-sep-torrrrrrrr, Grrrrrrrr. unfortunately for you they are objectively correct
Sougiro Seta We are not bad. Just unlucky Goonswarm Federation 19	Posted - 2015.03.09 20:38:42 - [706] - Quote What MASSADEATH pretends is somehow like Cuba invading USA. You blame a group of people for being more organized, more rich and, basically, more people than your group.
PotatoOverdose Royal Black Watch Highlanders DARKNESS. 2638	Posted - 2015.03.09 20:39:00 - [707] - Quote Promiscuous Female wrote: unfortunately for you they are objectively correct Prove it. Obligatory: Grrrrrrr In-terrr-sep-torrrrrrrr, Grrrrrrrr.
Eli Apol Pro Synergy 344	Posted - 2015.03.09 20:39:22 - [708] - Quote Promiscuous Female wrote: unfortunately for you they are objectively correct Please remind me how your 42 minutes orbitting a structure in your trollceptor isn't undone by 12 minutes of me in a maulus? Oh right, we wrecked you a few pages back, why come back for more?
Alavaria Fera GoonWaffe 6577	Posted - 2015.03.09 20:39:37 - [709] - Quote No one really cares... the bar will have to be set pretty low to allow the moa 0.0 fantasy to occur ^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears. Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 608	Posted - 2015.03.09 20:39:57 - [710] - Quote interceptor disengages and goes to new objective it cannot be killed

EvilweaselFinance BUTTECORP INC Goonswarm Federation 649	Posted - 2015.03.09 20:40:06 - [711] - Quote PotatoOverdose wrote: And your stubborn claim that everyone shares your particular views of "Grrrrrrr In-terrr-sep-torrrrrrrr, Grrrrrrrr," or that those views are correct, make for humorous reading material. my claim is backed up by unrefuted argument: yours is backed up by "well i don't believe it". nobody cares what color you believe the sky is, and your insistent belief it is red does not do much besides make bad posts
Eli Apol Pro Synergy 344	Posted - 2015.03.09 20:40:26 - [712] - Quote Promiscuous Female wrote: interceptor disengages and goes to new objective it cannot be killed Didn't want those 42 minutes anyways?
progodlegend Infinite Point Nulli Secunda 181	Posted - 2015.03.09 20:41:17 - [713] - Quote Gorski Car wrote: There are so many things you can do to counter trollceptors I cant help but think that this is a vocal minority overreacting and creating doomsday scenarios. You're considering this from the perspective of an individual grid or even an individual engagement. But from the perspective of someone who most run an alliance, and choose how much daily stress to put their alliance under, it's an entirely different thought process. There are counters to everything. There are counters to Ishtars, there are counters to tengu fleet, there were even counters to carrier assigned fighters which you seemed to hate so much. Just because something has a counter doesn't mean that the risk vs. reward aspect is balanced for both the attacker and the defender.
EvilweaselFinance BUTTECORP INC Goonswarm Federation 649	Posted - 2015.03.09 20:41:49 - [714] - Quote PotatoOverdose wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: unfortunately for you they are objectively correct Prove it. Obligatory: Grrrrrrr In-terrr-sep-torrrrrrrr, Grrrrrrrr. we have you can look at our posts, or you can look at yours: either proves beyond a shadow of a doubt we are correct like you don't have to even see anything we've posted to know the guy posting your post is wrong
PotatoOverdose Royal Black Watch Highlanders DARKNESS. 2638	Posted - 2015.03.09 20:42:28 - [715] - Quote EvilweaselFinance wrote: PotatoOverdose wrote: And your stubborn claim that everyone shares your particular views of "Grrrrrrr In-terrr-sep-torrrrrrrr, Grrrrrrrr," or that those views are correct, make for humorous reading material. my claim is backed up by unrefuted argument: yours is backed up by "well i don't believe it". nobody cares what color you believe the sky is, and your insistent belief it is red does not do much besides make bad posts Ceptor orbits structure for 30 minutes. Maulus comes by, damps it to hell, leaves. Ceptor's got another 40 minutes to go. Done.
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 608	Posted - 2015.03.09 20:42:51 - [716] - Quote Eli Apol wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: interceptor disengages and goes to new objective it cannot be killed Didn't want those 42 minutes anyways? at least you are admitting that the interceptor cannot be killed
EvilweaselFinance BUTTECORP INC Goonswarm Federation 649	Posted - 2015.03.09 20:43:02 - [717] - Quote Eli Apol wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: unfortunately for you they are objectively correct Please remind me how your 42 minutes orbitting a structure in your trollceptor isn't undone by 12 minutes of me in a maulus? Oh right, we wrecked you a few pages back, why come back for more? your argument is now "well sure its a bore-off but the defender has a little bit of an advantage in the bore-off" that is conceding the point, thank you for playing
EvilweaselFinance BUTTECORP INC Goonswarm Federation 649	Posted - 2015.03.09 20:43:59 - [718] - Quote PotatoOverdose wrote: Ceptor orbits structure for 30 minutes. Maulus comes by, damps it to hell, leaves. Ceptor's got another 40 minutes to go. Done. yes, a bore-off thank you for conceding you were wrong
Eli Apol Pro Synergy 344	Posted - 2015.03.09 20:44:00 - [719] - Quote Promiscuous Female wrote: Eli Apol wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: interceptor disengages and goes to new objective it cannot be killed Didn't want those 42 minutes anyways? at least you are admitting that the interceptor cannot be killed Nope, I didn't say that at all. Personally I'd use a stealth bomber with rockets though rather than these long range fits. Different folks, different strokes and all that.
Alavaria Fera GoonWaffe 6577	Posted - 2015.03.09 20:44:09 - [720] - Quote EvilweaselFinance wrote: Eli Apol wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: unfortunately for you they are objectively correct Please remind me how your 42 minutes orbitting a structure in your trollceptor isn't undone by 12 minutes of me in a maulus? Oh right, we wrecked you a few pages back, why come back for more? your argument is now "well sure its a bore-off but the defender has a little bit of an advantage in the bore-off" that is conceding the point, thank you for playing sounds like the attacker has the advantage, they move first, and when they leave, the defending side (if they were using a link) has to wait out their cycle. so the attacker again moves first... ^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears. Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.

PotatoOverdose Royal Black Watch Highlanders DARKNESS. 2638	Posted - 2015.03.09 20:44:16 - [721] - Quote EvilweaselFinance wrote: Eli Apol wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: unfortunately for you they are objectively correct Please remind me how your 42 minutes orbitting a structure in your trollceptor isn't undone by 12 minutes of me in a maulus? Oh right, we wrecked you a few pages back, why come back for more? your argument is now "well sure its a bore-off but the defender has a little bit of an advantage in the bore-off" that is conceding the point, thank you for playing How is a maulus putting damps on an inty for 1 cycle a bore off? One 20 second cycle cannot be a bore off by definition.
EvilweaselFinance BUTTECORP INC Goonswarm Federation 652	Posted - 2015.03.09 20:44:51 - [722] - Quote Eli Apol wrote: Nope, I didn't say that at all. Personally I'd use a stealth bomber with rockets though rather than these long range fits. Different folks, different strokes and all that. there are a million ways to fail to scratch the paint on the interceptor but this is a really really bad one
Gizznitt Malikite Agony Unleashed Agony Empire 4241	Posted - 2015.03.09 20:45:13 - [723] - Quote FT Diomedes wrote: Gizznitt Malikite wrote: FT Diomedes wrote: All these proponents of the system keep thinking in terms of a 1v1. "I counter your off-grid boosted trollceptor with my Cerberus and my cyno alt in a Maulus." Yes, Dominion sovereignty might not be perfect, but it is a damn site better than the above. The offensive power of Fozzie Sovereignty is completely out of balance. The defender has to be able to defend everywhere, but has no opportunity to fortify or entrench his position. Some might say, "but the same thing will happen now!" This is simply untrue. For one, in Dominion, the offense has to commit significant assets to stage an attack. Yes, if someone brings fifty supers to the fight, A may have a problem. But if fifty supers come to the fight, A can request help from friendly alliance C and we get a big fight, or a massive blue-ball fest (that at least has the advantage of only being once, not every day). In Fozzieland, if C tries to help A against B, D will entosis C's stuff. And don't forget that anyone who comes to help probably gets Space Aids. Thank you, Fozzie. Your example is flawed for several reasons: 1.) Small alliance A doesn't hold space in the current sov system. Perhaps big brother coalition C gives them a system (for a fee), but they will never truly own space unless they themselves can bring a huge force to attack. 2.) Alliance A is the underdog, and will lose space against bigger B. So what. They can then attempt to take it back, especially if alliance B doesn't bother to utilize it. Currently, if Big Bad Alliance B takes your sov, you can't do **** about it. 3.) With the 48 hour reinforcement window, Alliance A can call in all the backup they want. It's only a minor change in tactics for them to have an alliance A member in each backup fleet. (1) Alliance A can hold space in the current system, with big brother coalition C's support. The fee is paid in military service. (2) Then how are small alliances going to gain a foothold? They cannot. They will get roflstomped by anyone large enough to want to destroy their stuff. (3) Alliance A calls for backup from Alliance C. Alliance C moves pilots over. Now honorable third parties D, E, and F, join the fun and hit C's space while they are away. D, E, and F risk nothing, because they come from NPC space or low sec. Or from a coalition so large that it can send off a bunch of pilots during prime time. In short, you will have a lot of stuff burn after this patch. Nothing will be rebuilt. Coalitions will hold the money moons and one or two critical areas where they continue to build supercapitals. Everyone else will get burned out of space in short order. Low sec and NPC nullsec are the real beneficiaries of the new system. The existing coalitions will become larger and more powerful, but 0.0 space on the whole will be more empty. Unless of course, 800k new subscribers suddenly decide to start playing tomorrow and the PCU goes up to 100k. Which all trends indicate won't happen. In the current system, there is only one way small alliances hold space: They are serfs to larger groups. They pay with military service, rental agreements, or whatever. But they have NO ABILITY to stand on their own with the current mechanics. In the new system, small alliances can attack unused systems and break down an overstretched alliances hold. They might not even bother "claiming" the space, but simply live there and continually prevent big alliance form using it. Sure, they might periodically lose there space at the whims of big bully alliance B, but that's no different than now. The difference is they can actually attack sov without bluing half the galaxy. Are you really complaining that alliance C has to weigh the risks of third partying a distant fight with their own home defense? That's a great thing for them to have to consider, and if alliance A has their space rolled because they can't bring in a big brother to help defend their space, that is also a good thing!
Rroff Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork 948	Posted - 2015.03.09 20:45:37 - [724] - Quote Promiscuous Female wrote: Eli Apol wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: interceptor disengages and goes to new objective it cannot be killed Didn't want those 42 minutes anyways? at least you are admitting that the interceptor cannot be killed I can see why skynet got nerf batted non lols... short of leaving system interceptors would have had a lot tougher time surviving against assigned fighters :conspiracy: (PS this is mostly meant glibbly).
Eli Apol Pro Synergy 348	Posted - 2015.03.09 20:45:41 - [725] - Quote Alavaria Fera wrote: sounds like the attacker has the advantage, they move first, and when they leave, the defending side (if they were using a link) has to wait out their cycle. so the attacker again moves first... And the attacker has to stay there 'trolling' for upto 4 times as long... That sounds like a defensive advantage no?
MASSADEATH MASS A DEATH Mordus Angels 67	Posted - 2015.03.09 20:46:27 - [726] - Quote Sougiro Seta wrote: What MASSADEATH pretends is somehow like Cuba invading USA. You blame a group of people for being more organized, more rich and, basically, more people than your group. you are not more organized..all you have is numbers..and time on your side(aka isk/mechanics ) we have proven time and time than given anywhere equal numbers you are crushed by us. if you are so much better...then why even complain? surely you will come out ahead against small groups like us regardless of the mechanics no? the mechanics are your true power.... the mechanics allow your size...your size allows your domination... if we can disrupt your moon goo and sov you would implode..the current mechanics do not allow that...
Manfred Sideous North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion 1102	Posted - 2015.03.09 20:46:55 - [727] - 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. The 250km range is a necessity. If they make it a mid range or short range only the meta will be influenced by this. By leaving it at 250km it makes it possible for all kinds of doctrines to exist. @EveManny https://twitter.com/EveManny
EvilweaselFinance BUTTECORP INC Goonswarm Federation 652	Posted - 2015.03.09 20:46:57 - [728] - Quote PotatoOverdose wrote: How is a maulus putting damps on an inty for 1 cycle a bore off? you are doing an unfun activity where neither can affect the other except by refusing to be bored into logging out that is the definition of a bore-off "well i performed my unfun maintenance that does nothing except reset the timer on his, what fun" this is the pinnacle of your argument, that "well its a bore-off but...uh...it could be worse?"
Eli Apol Pro Synergy 348	Posted - 2015.03.09 20:46:59 - [729] - Quote EvilweaselFinance wrote: Eli Apol wrote: Nope, I didn't say that at all. Personally I'd use a stealth bomber with rockets though rather than these long range fits. Different folks, different strokes and all that. there are a million ways to fail to scratch the paint on the interceptor but this is a really really bad one Not when the interceptor is supposedly going to be sitting at 0km/s with no combat ability around a point where you can have multiple bookmarks preprepared. No locking delay after decloaking, instant web scram, then rockets...works good in my mind.
Alavaria Fera GoonWaffe 6578	Posted - 2015.03.09 20:47:20 - [730] - Quote Gizznitt Malikite wrote: FT Diomedes wrote: Gizznitt Malikite wrote: FT Diomedes wrote: All these proponents of the system keep thinking in terms of a 1v1. "I counter your off-grid boosted trollceptor with my Cerberus and my cyno alt in a Maulus." Yes, Dominion sovereignty might not be perfect, but it is a damn site better than the above. The offensive power of Fozzie Sovereignty is completely out of balance. The defender has to be able to defend everywhere, but has no opportunity to fortify or entrench his position. Some might say, "but the same thing will happen now!" This is simply untrue. For one, in Dominion, the offense has to commit significant assets to stage an attack. Yes, if someone brings fifty supers to the fight, A may have a problem. But if fifty supers come to the fight, A can request help from friendly alliance C and we get a big fight, or a massive blue-ball fest (that at least has the advantage of only being once, not every day). In Fozzieland, if C tries to help A against B, D will entosis C's stuff. And don't forget that anyone who comes to help probably gets Space Aids. Thank you, Fozzie. Your example is flawed for several reasons: 1.) Small alliance A doesn't hold space in the current sov system. Perhaps big brother coalition C gives them a system (for a fee), but they will never truly own space unless they themselves can bring a huge force to attack. 2.) Alliance A is the underdog, and will lose space against bigger B. So what. They can then attempt to take it back, especially if alliance B doesn't bother to utilize it. Currently, if Big Bad Alliance B takes your sov, you can't do **** about it. 3.) With the 48 hour reinforcement window, Alliance A can call in all the backup they want. It's only a minor change in tactics for them to have an alliance A member in each backup fleet. (1) Alliance A can hold space in the current system, with big brother coalition C's support. The fee is paid in military service. (2) Then how are small alliances going to gain a foothold? They cannot. They will get roflstomped by anyone large enough to want to destroy their stuff. (3) Alliance A calls for backup from Alliance C. Alliance C moves pilots over. Now honorable third parties D, E, and F, join the fun and hit C's space while they are away. D, E, and F risk nothing, because they come from NPC space or low sec. Or from a coalition so large that it can send off a bunch of pilots during prime time. In short, you will have a lot of stuff burn after this patch. Nothing will be rebuilt. Coalitions will hold the money moons and one or two critical areas where they continue to build supercapitals. Everyone else will get burned out of space in short order. Low sec and NPC nullsec are the real beneficiaries of the new system. The existing coalitions will become larger and more powerful, but 0.0 space on the whole will be more empty. Unless of course, 800k new subscribers suddenly decide to start playing tomorrow and the PCU goes up to 100k. Which all trends indicate won't happen. In the current system, there is only one way small alliances hold space: They are serfs to larger groups. They pay with military service, rental agreements, or whatever. But they have NO ABILITY to stand on their own with the current mechanics. In the new system, small alliances can attack unused systems and break down an overstretched alliances hold. They might not even bother "claiming" the space, but simply live there and continually prevent big alliance form using it. Sure, they might periodically lose there space at the whims of big bully alliance B, but that's no different than now. The difference is they can actually attack sov without bluing half the galaxy. Are you really complaining that alliance C has to weigh the risks of third partying a distant fight with their own home defense? That's a great thing for them to have to consider, and if alliance A has their space rolled because they can't bring in a big brother to help defend their space, that is also a good thing! So that's the role of small groups, being the sov trolls. It was better when we though the NPC drifters would do it, they won't get tired ^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears. Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.

Murkar Omaristos The Alabaster Albatross Eternal Pretorian Alliance 103	Posted - 2015.03.09 20:47:23 - [731] - Quote Alavaria Fera wrote: Maybe the point is no one can hold sov at all. It would sure shake up something almost seems like this is what they are trying to achieve
SilentAsTheGrave Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective 70	Posted - 2015.03.09 20:47:39 - [732] - Quote EvilweaselFinance wrote: SilentAsTheGrave wrote: Paying the pilots from the war chest to be active in these systems is out of the question? why would we want the game to reward unfun bore-offs where you have to pay people to play the game I find blowing people up to be very fun.
Veskrashen Justified Chaos Spaceship Bebop 757	Posted - 2015.03.09 20:47:41 - [733] - Quote Promiscuous Female wrote: at least you are admitting that the interceptor cannot be killed There's been dozens of ways to kill it already presented on this very thread. Your response has generally amounted to "Nuh Uh!!!" An interceptor can be killed. Even one kitted for evasion. It's been done before, will be done again, and when they come with the chance to drop 80mil in loot will be a tempting target. Admit that trollceptors are a non-issue, and let's look at any other potential balance issues, shall we? We Gallente have a saying: "CCP created the Gallente Militia to train the Fighters..."
EvilweaselFinance BUTTECORP INC Goonswarm Federation 652	Posted - 2015.03.09 20:48:42 - [734] - Quote SilentAsTheGrave wrote: EvilweaselFinance wrote: SilentAsTheGrave wrote: Paying the pilots from the war chest to be active in these systems is out of the question? why would we want the game to reward unfun bore-offs where you have to pay people to play the game I find blowing people up to be very fun. me too, which is why i am arguing for a system where that happens instead of the pinnacle of combat being who gets bored first, the uncatchable interceptor or the disposable e-war
PotatoOverdose Royal Black Watch Highlanders DARKNESS. 2638	Posted - 2015.03.09 20:49:25 - [735] - Quote EvilweaselFinance wrote: PotatoOverdose wrote: How is a maulus putting damps on an inty for 1 cycle a bore off? you are doing an unfun activity where neither can affect the other except by refusing to be bored into logging out that is the definition of a bore-off "well i performed my unfun maintenance that does nothing except reset the timer on his, what fun" this is the pinnacle of your argument, that "well its a bore-off but...uh...it could be worse?" Putting damps on someone is as un-fun as pointing someone. Nice Try. If the limit of your argument is "I find it boring to apply an ewar module to someone for a cycle," well .... it's good to see you have no arguments. Personally, I love Ewar, always have.
Acuma Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic 4	Posted - 2015.03.09 20:49:33 - [736] - Quote EvilweaselFinance wrote: PotatoOverdose wrote: How is a maulus putting damps on an inty for 1 cycle a bore off? you are doing an unfun activity where neither can affect the other except by refusing to be bored into logging out that is the definition of a bore-off "well i performed my unfun maintenance that does nothing except reset the timer on his, what fun" this is the pinnacle of your argument, that "well its a bore-off but...uh...it could be worse?" The counter to your "bore-off" is that the attacker spends 30 minutes while the defender spends 2. You'll tire of that quickly and bring bigger guns eventually. Unless you think you want to make a career out orbiting and jumping through gates?
EvilweaselFinance BUTTECORP INC Goonswarm Federation 652	Posted - 2015.03.09 20:49:41 - [737] - Quote Veskrashen wrote: There's been dozens of ways to kill it already presented on this very thread. Your response has generally amounted to "Nuh Uh!!!" no, the response has universally been "that is a stupid way that does not work in practice for these specific reasons" all null empires have been dealing with inty fleets for months: we know what we're talking about
Alavaria Fera GoonWaffe 6578	Posted - 2015.03.09 20:49:56 - [738] - Quote EvilweaselFinance wrote: SilentAsTheGrave wrote: EvilweaselFinance wrote: SilentAsTheGrave wrote: Paying the pilots from the war chest to be active in these systems is out of the question? why would we want the game to reward unfun bore-offs where you have to pay people to play the game I find blowing people up to be very fun. me too, which is why i am arguing for a system where that happens instead of the pinnacle of combat being who gets bored first, the uncatchable interceptor or the disposable e-war Hmm, so I guess we can train the next group of newbies to be sov defense ewar? They would get to run around and contribute to defending the home ^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears. Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 608	Posted - 2015.03.09 20:50:20 - [739] - Quote MASSADEATH wrote: Sougiro Seta wrote: What MASSADEATH pretends is somehow like Cuba invading USA. You blame a group of people for being more organized, more rich and, basically, more people than your group. you are not more organized lol
Alavaria Fera GoonWaffe 6578	Posted - 2015.03.09 20:51:12 - [740] - Quote Promiscuous Female wrote: MASSADEATH wrote: Sougiro Seta wrote: What MASSADEATH pretends is somehow like Cuba invading USA. You blame a group of people for being more organized, more rich and, basically, more people than your group. you are not more organized lol hahahaha what. Ok ok sure. I will bow to your 0.0 fantasy ^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears. Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.

Baali Tekitsu AQUILA INC Verge of Collapse 698	Posted - 2015.03.09 20:51:26 - [741] - Quote Liam Inkuras wrote: This thread went downhill following page 1, and is now just repeated sperging. Pls stop Long time since there has been a thread as good as this. About since the dev blog thread. RATE LIKE SUBSCRIBE
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 608	Posted - 2015.03.09 20:51:43 - [742] - Quote if moa was so organized then why did they fail to participate even in a token fashion in cfc pvp objectives during their short stay in the cfc anoms are a hell of a drug
MASSADEATH MASS A DEATH Mordus Angels 67	Posted - 2015.03.09 20:52:05 - [743] - Quote Alavaria Fera wrote: Gizznitt Malikite wrote: FT Diomedes wrote: Gizznitt Malikite wrote: FT Diomedes wrote: All these proponents of the system keep thinking in terms of a 1v1. "I counter your off-grid boosted trollceptor with my Cerberus and my cyno alt in a Maulus." Yes, Dominion sovereignty might not be perfect, but it is a damn site better than the above. The offensive power of Fozzie Sovereignty is completely out of balance. The defender has to be able to defend everywhere, but has no opportunity to fortify or entrench his position. Some might say, "but the same thing will happen now!" This is simply untrue. For one, in Dominion, the offense has to commit significant assets to stage an attack. Yes, if someone brings fifty supers to the fight, A may have a problem. But if fifty supers come to the fight, A can request help from friendly alliance C and we get a big fight, or a massive blue-ball fest (that at least has the advantage of only being once, not every day). In Fozzieland, if C tries to help A against B, D will entosis C's stuff. And don't forget that anyone who comes to help probably gets Space Aids. Thank you, Fozzie. Your example is flawed for several reasons: 1.) Small alliance A doesn't hold space in the current sov system. Perhaps big brother coalition C gives them a system (for a fee), but they will never truly own space unless they themselves can bring a huge force to attack. 2.) Alliance A is the underdog, and will lose space against bigger B. So what. They can then attempt to take it back, especially if alliance B doesn't bother to utilize it. Currently, if Big Bad Alliance B takes your sov, you can't do **** about it. 3.) With the 48 hour reinforcement window, Alliance A can call in all the backup they want. It's only a minor change in tactics for them to have an alliance A member in each backup fleet. (1) Alliance A can hold space in the current system, with big brother coalition C's support. The fee is paid in military service. (2) Then how are small alliances going to gain a foothold? They cannot. They will get roflstomped by anyone large enough to want to destroy their stuff. (3) Alliance A calls for backup from Alliance C. Alliance C moves pilots over. Now honorable third parties D, E, and F, join the fun and hit C's space while they are away. D, E, and F risk nothing, because they come from NPC space or low sec. Or from a coalition so large that it can send off a bunch of pilots during prime time. In short, you will have a lot of stuff burn after this patch. Nothing will be rebuilt. Coalitions will hold the money moons and one or two critical areas where they continue to build supercapitals. Everyone else will get burned out of space in short order. Low sec and NPC nullsec are the real beneficiaries of the new system. The existing coalitions will become larger and more powerful, but 0.0 space on the whole will be more empty. Unless of course, 800k new subscribers suddenly decide to start playing tomorrow and the PCU goes up to 100k. Which all trends indicate won't happen. In the current system, there is only one way small alliances hold space: They are serfs to larger groups. They pay with military service, rental agreements, or whatever. But they have NO ABILITY to stand on their own with the current mechanics. In the new system, small alliances can attack unused systems and break down an overstretched alliances hold. They might not even bother "claiming" the space, but simply live there and continually prevent big alliance form using it. Sure, they might periodically lose there space at the whims of big bully alliance B, but that's no different than now. The difference is they can actually attack sov without bluing half the galaxy. Are you really complaining that alliance C has to weigh the risks of third partying a distant fight with their own home defense? That's a great thing for them to have to consider, and if alliance A has their space rolled because they can't bring in a big brother to help defend their space, that is also a good thing! So that's the role of small groups, being the sov trolls. It was better when we though the NPC drifters would do it, they won't get tired you think small groups will give up? its been 2 years+ and we have not given up...and now we are finally going to have some mechanics that favour our fighting style. we will grind you daily into the smallest possible area we can force you into.... think of the POCO wars era....x 50 more goon tears please hopefully even more evil "sov troll" meta ships will be thought up
Acuma Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic 4	Posted - 2015.03.09 20:52:18 - [744] - Quote It seems like the goons story is going from "It's overpowered and we'll burn down null with trollceptors" to "it's a boring stalemate where the attacker wastes a ton of time compared to the defender and we don't like it." Is that about right?
Eli Apol Pro Synergy 348	Posted - 2015.03.09 20:53:02 - [745] - Quote Promiscuous Female wrote: if moa was so organized then why did they fail to participate even in a token fashion in cfc pvp objectives during their short stay in the cfc anoms are a hell of a drug Yay let's ignore the argument I got dunked in and start throwing out trash talk.
EvilweaselFinance BUTTECORP INC Goonswarm Federation 652	Posted - 2015.03.09 20:53:14 - [746] - Quote PotatoOverdose wrote: Putting damps on someone is as un-fun as pointing someone. Nice Try. If the limit of your argument is "I find it boring to apply an ewar module to someone for a cycle," well .... it's good to see you have no arguments. have you ever actually been in pvp? when you point someone, that is part of combat where they are then forced to fight damping somone will break their lock, forcing them to move and restart the process is a bore-off: you have no possibility of a fight, and instead you are taking turns flipping a switch back and forth hoping the other party gets bored and leaves before flipping the switch back Acuma wrote: The counter to your "bore-off" is that the attacker spends 30 minutes while the defender spends 2. You'll tire of that quickly and bring bigger guns eventually. Unless you think you want to make a carreer out orbiting and jumping through gates? that's a bore-off, and i know it will happen based on how fervently everyone is trying to avoid having to put their link ships at risk of any sort. if these people were willing to "bring bigger guns" they wouldn't be throwing a hissy fit at the idea of the link forcing enough commitment your ship might die
davet517 Caldari Provisions Caldari State 64	Posted - 2015.03.09 20:54:04 - [747] - Quote Sougiro Seta wrote: What MASSADEATH pretends is somehow like Cuba invading USA. You blame a group of people for being more organized, more rich and, basically, more people than your group. Maybe Cuba could get someone to disband the USA and defect?
Alavaria Fera GoonWaffe 6578	Posted - 2015.03.09 20:54:05 - [748] - Quote Acuma wrote: It seems like the goons story is going from "It's overpowered and we'll burn down null with trollceptors" to "it's a boring stalemate where the attacker wastes a ton of time compared to the defender and we don't like it." Is that about right? Nope, it's the same.. the attacker has advantage. so moa will end our 0.0 dream, and everyone else will also end everyone else's 0.0 fantasy this will give birth to ccp's 0.0 vision ^^ 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 314	Posted - 2015.03.09 20:54:24 - [749] - Quote Acuma wrote: It seems like the goons story is going from "It's overpowered and we'll burn down null with trollceptors" to "it's a boring stalemate where the attacker wastes a ton of time compared to the defender and we don't like it." Is that about right? For the record, the latter position is more that being a picket defense to protect against these things is boring as hell. Which dovetails nicely into the first one.
PotatoOverdose Royal Black Watch Highlanders DARKNESS. 2638	Posted - 2015.03.09 20:54:47 - [750] - Quote Acuma wrote: It seems like the goons story is going from "It's overpowered and we'll burn down null with interceptors" to "it's a boring stalemate where the attacker wastes a ton of time compared to the defender." Is that about right? They're moving goalposts. Apparently 1 cycle of an ewar module (e.g. damp, point) is now a "bore off". In reality, It's PTSD. Time was, a bunch of NPC dwellers in ceptors f***ed up a lot of afktars. CFC's been crying about it ever since.

Nelly Uanos Spirit Unlimited La Division Bleue 26	Posted - 2015.03.09 20:55:13 - [751] - Quote The simplest solution seem that activating the Entosis Link should disable MWD/MJD and jump drive. That leave the 10mn AB T3 destroyer & frig... or maybe the 100mn Tengu? I think these few ship would still be somewhat easy to deal with. Most of the troll factor is gone.
Eli Apol Pro Synergy 348	Posted - 2015.03.09 20:55:49 - [752] - Quote Arrendis wrote: Acuma wrote: It seems like the goons story is going from "It's overpowered and we'll burn down null with trollceptors" to "it's a boring stalemate where the attacker wastes a ton of time compared to the defender and we don't like it." Is that about right? For the record, the latter position is more that being a picket defense to protect against these things is boring as hell. Which dovetails nicely into the first one. Nope, the defense against the troller is for the trollee to only show up after 38 minutes and flip the roles. Quite beautiful imho.
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 608	Posted - 2015.03.09 20:55:49 - [753] - Quote Eli Apol wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: if moa was so organized then why did they fail to participate even in a token fashion in cfc pvp objectives during their short stay in the cfc anoms are a hell of a drug Yay let's ignore the argument I got dunked in and start throwing out trash talk. the fact that I am among the top posters in this thread means that I have far from ignored it the fact that you are ignoring my sublime truth does not translate into it being wrong
Acuma Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic 4	Posted - 2015.03.09 20:56:00 - [754] - Quote Alavaria Fera wrote: Acuma wrote: It seems like the goons story is going from "It's overpowered and we'll burn down null with trollceptors" to "it's a boring stalemate where the attacker wastes a ton of time compared to the defender and we don't like it." Is that about right? Nope, it's the same.. the attacker has advantage. so moa will end our 0.0 dream, and everyone else will also end everyone else's 0.0 fantasy this will give birth to ccp's 0.0 vision Attacker has the advantage? Only one link for each side counts......clearly if all you bring is a trollceptor you are at a huge disadvantage of accomplishing anything but wasting about 20-30 minutes per attempt to RF something that you won't be able to RF.......
EvilweaselFinance BUTTECORP INC Goonswarm Federation 652	Posted - 2015.03.09 20:56:06 - [755] - Quote Acuma wrote: It seems like the goons story is going from "It's overpowered and we'll burn down null with trollceptors" to "it's a boring stalemate where the attacker wastes a ton of time compared to the defender and we don't like it." Is that about right? no part of your arguments have any merit and all are very, very obviously from someone who has never placed a ship at risk of dying and is probably mining veldspar at this very moment what i am merely doing is saying "even if we assume everything you say is true, then look, it's still garbage" like, the best case scenario is that it's an unfun bore-off, just with a minor advantage to the defender
MASSADEATH MASS A DEATH Mordus Angels 68	Posted - 2015.03.09 20:56:39 - [756] - Quote Promiscuous Female wrote: if moa was so organized then why did they fail to participate even in a token fashion in cfc pvp objectives during their short stay in the cfc anoms are a hell of a drug know knows..was not part of MOA then..and never would be if they were in the CFC... most of us who are involved now only came cause they DID get booted from CFC
Eli Apol Pro Synergy 349	Posted - 2015.03.09 20:58:28 - [757] - Quote Promiscuous Female wrote: the fact that I am among the top posters in this thread means that I have far from ignored it the fact that you are ignoring my sublime truth does not translate into it being wrong Your sublime truth: I can troll someone for 40 minutes of my time and make them waste 10 minutes of theirs, potentially losing my 100m ship to all kinds of counters (long list, can't be bothered to repeat) Top kek
M1k3y Koontz Aether Ventures Surely You're Joking 733	Posted - 2015.03.09 20:58:56 - [758] - 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. For the nay sayers one of the more likely fits with stats using an interceptor : [Raptor, trollceptor fit] Overdrive Injector System II - 447k isk Overdrive Injector System II -447k isk Overdrive Injector System II -447k isk Coreli A-Type 1MN Microwarpdrive -27.4m isk Sensor Booster II, Targeting Range Script 1m isk Sensor Booster II, Targeting Range Script 1m isk Sensor Booster II, Targeting Range Script 1m isk [Empty High slot] [Empty High slot] [Empty High slot] Small Low Friction Nozzle Joints II 2.34m isk Small Low Friction Nozzle Joints II - 2.34m isk Fittings spare : 138 cpu (69%), 29.5 powergrid (62.11%). Implants : Eifyr and Co. 'Rogue' Navigation NN-603 -12m isk Fit moves @ 5,093m/s before heat and can target out to 124km. With heat : 7,278m/s Full stats can be found here : http://puu.sh/gt5GV/d49e6babaf.png Total isk with implants : 71,580,000. (assuming you always lose the pod) Amount of these you could see isk generated for per hour based on average income from varying sources : Nullsec anomaly afk ishtar 1 per hour Nullsec anomaly carrier 2 per hour Highsec "HQ" incursions 2 per hour ( can double that occasionally) Highsec "Vanguard" Incursions 1.8 per hour Highsec ice mining with perfect boosts 0.5 per hour This is per person assuming they have spent at least a day or two getting familiar with doing their activity. https://i.imgur.com/dZoUBJK.jpg 45 DPS at 124km, your interceptor is dead in under a minute (55.5 seconds, yes I did the math) It's also a fifth the cost. Your move. Also, yes it has remote sebos. If you can't get two guys together to defend your space against an interceptor in your prime time, what are you doing in sov? How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp.
Acuma Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic 5	Posted - 2015.03.09 20:59:41 - [759] - Quote EvilweaselFinance wrote: Acuma wrote: It seems like the goons story is going from "It's overpowered and we'll burn down null with trollceptors" to "it's a boring stalemate where the attacker wastes a ton of time compared to the defender and we don't like it." Is that about right? no part of your arguments have any merit and all are very, very obviously from someone who has never placed a ship at risk of dying and is probably mining veldspar at this very moment what i am merely doing is saying "even if we assume everything you say is true, then look, it's still garbage" like, the best case scenario is that it's an unfun bore-off, just with a minor advantage to the defender Just saying "no part of your arguments have any merit," doesn't make it so. I for one would enjoy you coming in and wasting 30 minutes of your play time while I just undock and spend 2 minutes activating a link so you warp off. You then go to the next system and repeat.......congrats, you just chose to be bored and the defender goes back to business after a few minutes. And it only takes one cheap frigate to ruin your "i'm gonna RF all of null in my trollceptor!"
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 608	Posted - 2015.03.09 21:00:43 - [760] - Quote M1k3y Koontz wrote: https://i.imgur.com/dZoUBJK.jpg 45 DPS at 124km, your interceptor is dead in under a minute (55.5 seconds, yes I did the math) It's also a fifth the cost. Your move. please do not post fits that only kill the interceptor inside of a very short, narrow range where the interceptor would not be in any even remotely plausible pvp scenario basically only post RLML fits, and even then i hope you have 200km+ range "look at the graph it has a point this is where I can guarantee a ship to be at all times"

EvilweaselFinance BUTTECORP INC Goonswarm Federation 652	Posted - 2015.03.09 21:00:55 - [761] - Quote i mean really, everyone arguing in favor of trollceptors is doing one of the following: 1) we should get to contest sov risk-free, because its not fair i don't have a sov system and i never will have one if my ships might blow up 2) i do not understand how to kill an interceptor because those aren't used for mining or missioning in highsec, so here is my theorycrafted nonsense 3) i do not value my time at all and don't understand why anyone else does: who doesn't want a bore-off? like there's not a single post defending them that doesn't fit into one of those three
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 608	Posted - 2015.03.09 21:01:33 - [762] - Quote Eli Apol wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: the fact that I am among the top posters in this thread means that I have far from ignored it the fact that you are ignoring my sublime truth does not translate into it being wrong Your sublime truth: I can troll someone for 40 minutes of my time and make them waste 10 minutes of theirs, potentially losing my 100m ship to all kinds of counters (long list, can't be bothered to repeat) Top kek nope check my post history for a laundry list of reasons why this interpretation is patently false
EvilweaselFinance BUTTECORP INC Goonswarm Federation 652	Posted - 2015.03.09 21:01:45 - [763] - Quote M1k3y Koontz wrote: 45 DPS at 124km, your interceptor is dead in under a minute (55.5 seconds, yes I did the math) It's also a fifth the cost. Your move. Also, yes it has remote sebos. If you can't get two guys together to defend your space against an interceptor in your prime time, what are you doing in sov? post type #2: is unaware of how interceptors work specifically, is unaware that an interceptor is not there 55 seconds later
MASSADEATH MASS A DEATH Mordus Angels 68	Posted - 2015.03.09 21:02:05 - [764] - Quote EvilweaselFinance wrote: Acuma wrote: It seems like the goons story is going from "It's overpowered and we'll burn down null with trollceptors" to "it's a boring stalemate where the attacker wastes a ton of time compared to the defender and we don't like it." Is that about right? no part of your arguments have any merit and all are very, very obviously from someone who has never placed a ship at risk of dying and is probably mining veldspar at this very moment what i am merely doing is saying "even if we assume everything you say is true, then look, it's still garbage" like, the best case scenario is that it's an unfun bore-off, just with a minor advantage to the defender UNFUN? undoing all of CFC and goon sov.... while endlessly sov trolling your area of influence into smaller and smaller chunks? while collecting all the goon PVE tears? as your your ratters lose ratting space area, and then start to fight who gets to rat where...and SMA is ratting in my area...and TNT is not defending this or that ? and then so and so ect ect ... THAT IS PURE GOLD I cannot think of a better way to spend the next 2 years grinding CFC /Goons down in a battle of the wills. hopefully the area is flooded with like minded people that will realize they too can troll the CFC/goons as well.... GOLD..PURE GOLD
Alavaria Fera GoonWaffe 6578	Posted - 2015.03.09 21:02:21 - [765] - Quote EvilweaselFinance wrote: i mean really, everyone arguing in favor of trollceptors is doing one of the following: 1) we should get to contest sov risk-free, because its not fair i don't have a sov system and i never will have one if my ships might blow up 2) i do not understand how to kill an interceptor because those aren't used for mining or missioning in highsec, so here is my theorycrafted nonsense 3) i do not value my time at all and don't understand why anyone else does: who doesn't want a bore-off? like there's not a single post defending them that doesn't fit into one of those three Take the limit: If one person could take down all sov, then: A. Boat would end everyone's sov B. massadeath would end our sov and then, well... our 0.0 dream would be over. Doesn't matter if everyone else's 0.0 fantasy is also over because we'd be ended. ^^ 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 6578	Posted - 2015.03.09 21:03:25 - [766] - Quote MASSADEATH wrote: EvilweaselFinance wrote: Acuma wrote: It seems like the goons story is going from "It's overpowered and we'll burn down null with trollceptors" to "it's a boring stalemate where the attacker wastes a ton of time compared to the defender and we don't like it." Is that about right? no part of your arguments have any merit and all are very, very obviously from someone who has never placed a ship at risk of dying and is probably mining veldspar at this very moment what i am merely doing is saying "even if we assume everything you say is true, then look, it's still garbage" like, the best case scenario is that it's an unfun bore-off, just with a minor advantage to the defender UNFUN? undoing all of CFC and goon sov.... while endlessly sov trolling your area of influence into smaller and smaller chunks? while collecting all the goon PVE tears? as your your ratters lose ratting space area, and then start to fight who gets to rat where...and SMA is ratting in my area...and TNT is not defending this or that ? and then so and so ect ect ... THAT IS PURE GOLD I cannot think of a better way to spend the next 2 years grinding CFC /Goons down in a battle of the wills. hopefully the area is flooded with like minded people that will realize they too can troll the CFC/goons as well.... GOLD..PURE GOLD AWW YEAH Now again with even more FEELING!!!! You know you can do it, fozzie sov will give you the power to do it!! End their 0.0 dream!!! ^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears. Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
afkalt Republic Military School Minmatar Republic 907	Posted - 2015.03.09 21:03:37 - [767] - Quote M1k3y Koontz wrote: 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. For the nay sayers one of the more likely fits with stats using an interceptor : [Raptor, trollceptor fit] Overdrive Injector System II - 447k isk Overdrive Injector System II -447k isk Overdrive Injector System II -447k isk Coreli A-Type 1MN Microwarpdrive -27.4m isk Sensor Booster II, Targeting Range Script 1m isk Sensor Booster II, Targeting Range Script 1m isk Sensor Booster II, Targeting Range Script 1m isk [Empty High slot] [Empty High slot] [Empty High slot] Small Low Friction Nozzle Joints II 2.34m isk Small Low Friction Nozzle Joints II - 2.34m isk Fittings spare : 138 cpu (69%), 29.5 powergrid (62.11%). Implants : Eifyr and Co. 'Rogue' Navigation NN-603 -12m isk Fit moves @ 5,093m/s before heat and can target out to 124km. With heat : 7,278m/s Full stats can be found here : http://puu.sh/gt5GV/d49e6babaf.png Total isk with implants : 71,580,000. (assuming you always lose the pod) Amount of these you could see isk generated for per hour based on average income from varying sources : Nullsec anomaly afk ishtar 1 per hour Nullsec anomaly carrier 2 per hour Highsec "HQ" incursions 2 per hour ( can double that occasionally) Highsec "Vanguard" Incursions 1.8 per hour Highsec ice mining with perfect boosts 0.5 per hour This is per person assuming they have spent at least a day or two getting familiar with doing their activity. https://i.imgur.com/dZoUBJK.jpg 45 DPS at 124km, your interceptor is dead in under a minute (55.5 seconds, yes I did the math) It's also a fifth the cost. Your move. Also, yes it has remote sebos. If you can't get two guys together to defend your space against an interceptor in your prime time, what are you doing in sov? But it'll run away! Apparently that represents an unsuccessful defence op....or some such garbage by people scared of the big bad interceptor.
Aiyshimin Fistful of Finns Triumvirate. 444	Posted - 2015.03.09 21:03:43 - [768] - Quote Ranger 1 wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: Ranger 1 wrote: Point being, your entire organization doesn't need to be trying to kill interceptors constantly, just devote the necessary number of ships to keep an Entosis point on your important stuff. If you can't do that, scale back a bit until you can. the fact that we can easily do exactly this is immaterial to the point The fact that your are complaining bitterly about the need to do this is very material to the point. Why would you care if others are unwilling to do so? That's not your problem. Its not their own space they worry about, its their rented space. Currently hundreds of renters dock up when 5-man gang in T1 ships shows up 3 systems away, and stay docked until the gang leaves. If the gang comes back with their whole alliance fleet of 50 and reinforces the system, the slumlords first try to buy the attackers off, then CTA their entire coalition, hire PL and a random wannabe pet alliance, batphone another coalition and blob the final timer. Renters stay docked up. In the new system that 5-man gang takes the sov unless the renters undock and drive them away. Renters go back to hisec. ISK stops flowing to the blob. Blob leaders need to find daytime jobs. This is why you see goons blobbing these threads, the suggested sov 2.0 breaks their modus operandi, by forcing the local entity to respond to immediate pvp threats with pvp. PVP is not why renters are in null, they pay slumlords so they can fully focus on ratting. In sov 2.0, pvp is the reason to be in null.
PotatoOverdose Royal Black Watch Highlanders DARKNESS. 2638	Posted - 2015.03.09 21:03:56 - [769] - Quote Promiscuous Female wrote: M1k3y Koontz wrote: https://i.imgur.com/dZoUBJK.jpg 45 DPS at 124km, your interceptor is dead in under a minute (55.5 seconds, yes I did the math) It's also a fifth the cost. Your move. please do not post fits that only kill the interceptor inside of a very short, narrow range where the interceptor would not be in any even remotely plausible pvp scenario basically only post RLML fits, and even then i hope you have 200km+ range "look at the graph it has a point this is where I can guarantee a ship to be at all times" Maulus damps well past any max ceptor lockrange. Can damp 4 trollceptors at once. One cycle --> GG sov lazor. [Insert inevitable "I don't want to have to cycle my ewar module once to lol-troll a bunch of ceptors" comment] /thread
Andrea Keuvo Science and Trade Institute Caldari State 316	Posted - 2015.03.09 21:04:22 - [770] - Quote Gizznitt Malikite wrote: FT Diomedes wrote: Gizznitt Malikite wrote: FT Diomedes wrote: All these proponents of the system keep thinking in terms of a 1v1. "I counter your off-grid boosted trollceptor with my Cerberus and my cyno alt in a Maulus." Yes, Dominion sovereignty might not be perfect, but it is a damn site better than the above. The offensive power of Fozzie Sovereignty is completely out of balance. The defender has to be able to defend everywhere, but has no opportunity to fortify or entrench his position. Some might say, "but the same thing will happen now!" This is simply untrue. For one, in Dominion, the offense has to commit significant assets to stage an attack. Yes, if someone brings fifty supers to the fight, A may have a problem. But if fifty supers come to the fight, A can request help from friendly alliance C and we get a big fight, or a massive blue-ball fest (that at least has the advantage of only being once, not every day). In Fozzieland, if C tries to help A against B, D will entosis C's stuff. And don't forget that anyone who comes to help probably gets Space Aids. Thank you, Fozzie. Your example is flawed for several reasons: 1.) Small alliance A doesn't hold space in the current sov system. Perhaps big brother coalition C gives them a system (for a fee), but they will never truly own space unless they themselves can bring a huge force to attack. 2.) Alliance A is the underdog, and will lose space against bigger B. So what. They can then attempt to take it back, especially if alliance B doesn't bother to utilize it. Currently, if Big Bad Alliance B takes your sov, you can't do **** about it. 3.) With the 48 hour reinforcement window, Alliance A can call in all the backup they want. It's only a minor change in tactics for them to have an alliance A member in each backup fleet. (1) Alliance A can hold space in the current system, with big brother coalition C's support. The fee is paid in military service. (2) Then how are small alliances going to gain a foothold? They cannot. They will get roflstomped by anyone large enough to want to destroy their stuff. (3) Alliance A calls for backup from Alliance C. Alliance C moves pilots over. Now honorable third parties D, E, and F, join the fun and hit C's space while they are away. D, E, and F risk nothing, because they come from NPC space or low sec. Or from a coalition so large that it can send off a bunch of pilots during prime time. In short, you will have a lot of stuff burn after this patch. Nothing will be rebuilt. Coalitions will hold the money moons and one or two critical areas where they continue to build supercapitals. Everyone else will get burned out of space in short order. Low sec and NPC nullsec are the real beneficiaries of the new system. The existing coalitions will become larger and more powerful, but 0.0 space on the whole will be more empty. Unless of course, 800k new subscribers suddenly decide to start playing tomorrow and the PCU goes up to 100k. Which all trends indicate won't happen. In the current system, there is only one way small alliances hold space: They are serfs to larger groups. They pay with military service, rental agreements, or whatever. But they have NO ABILITY to stand on their own with the current mechanics. In the new system, small alliances can attack unused systems and break down an overstretched alliances hold. They might not even bother "claiming" the space, but simply live there and continually prevent big alliance form using it. Sure, they might periodically lose there space at the whims of big bully alliance B, but that's no different than now. The difference is they can actually attack sov without bluing half the galaxy. Are you really complaining that alliance C has to weigh the risks of third partying a distant fight with their own home defense? That's a great thing for them to have to consider, and if alliance A has their space rolled because they can't bring in a big brother to help defend their space, that is also a good thing! The important piece that you are missing is that unless the small alliance goes through the logistical pain in the ass that is bringing in freighter sized sov upgrades that system that they took is literally useless to them. Without the sov upgrades they cannot even earn hisec level income, and replacing freighter sized sov upgrades every time big bully alliance B decides to kick down their sandcastle is not really an enjoyable activity for anyone. So yeah, under fozziesov I guess you 'could' take sov as you described but unless you are a masochist why would you want to.

Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 608	Posted - 2015.03.09 21:05:10 - [771] - Quote Aiyshimin wrote: Its not their own space they worry about, its their rented space. Currently hundreds of renters dock up when 5-man gang in T1 ships shows up 3 systems away, and stay docked until the gang leaves. ting. In sov 2.0, pvp is the reason to be in null. try getting dudes into their corps and awoxing the renters basically be better at eve
Alavaria Fera GoonWaffe 6578	Posted - 2015.03.09 21:05:44 - [772] - Quote Aiyshimin wrote: Ranger 1 wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: Ranger 1 wrote: Point being, your entire organization doesn't need to be trying to kill interceptors constantly, just devote the necessary number of ships to keep an Entosis point on your important stuff. If you can't do that, scale back a bit until you can. the fact that we can easily do exactly this is immaterial to the point The fact that your are complaining bitterly about the need to do this is very material to the point. Why would you care if others are unwilling to do so? That's not your problem. Its not their own space they worry about, its their rented space. Currently hundreds of renters dock up when 5-man gang in T1 ships shows up 3 systems away, and stay docked until the gang leaves. If the gang comes back with their whole alliance fleet of 50 and reinforces the system, the slumlords first try to buy the attackers off, then CTA their entire coalition, hire PL and a random wannabe pet alliance, batphone another coalition and blob the final timer. Renters stay docked up. In the new system that 5-man gang takes the sov unless the renters undock and drive them away. Renters go back to hisec. ISK stops flowing to the blob. Blob leaders need to find daytime jobs. This is why you see goons blobbing these threads, the suggested sov 2.0 breaks their modus operandi, by forcing the local entity to respond to immediate pvp threats with pvp. PVP is not why renters are in null, they pay slumlords so they can fully focus on ratting. In sov 2.0, pvp is the reason to be in null. If all renters disappeared it's good. Other groups depend more on it than we do. But you know this already. It is of course irrelevant once our 0.0 dream is ended by MOA in a fit of HOT BLOODED SOVTROLLING leading to DEATH OF 0.0 dream YEAHHHH ^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears. Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 608	Posted - 2015.03.09 21:06:10 - [773] - Quote PotatoOverdose wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: M1k3y Koontz wrote: https://i.imgur.com/dZoUBJK.jpg 45 DPS at 124km, your interceptor is dead in under a minute (55.5 seconds, yes I did the math) It's also a fifth the cost. Your move. please do not post fits that only kill the interceptor inside of a very short, narrow range where the interceptor would not be in any even remotely plausible pvp scenario basically only post RLML fits, and even then i hope you have 200km+ range "look at the graph it has a point this is where I can guarantee a ship to be at all times" Maulus damps well past any max ceptor lockrange. Can damp 4 trollceptors at once. One cycle --> GG sov lazor. [Insert inevitable "I don't want to have to cycle my ewar module once to lol-troll a bunch of ceptors" comment] /thread interceptor disengages, finds another target it is like you are fundamentally unable to conceive of a situation where there is more than one objective at play even an alliance owning a single system can have up to three
Alavaria Fera GoonWaffe 6579	Posted - 2015.03.09 21:06:52 - [774] - Quote Andrea Keuvo wrote: The important piece that you are missing is that unless the small alliance goes through the logistical pain in the ass that is bringing in freighter sized sov upgrades that system that they took is literally useless to them. Without the sov upgrades they cannot even earn hisec level income, and replacing freighter sized sov upgrades every time big bully alliance B decides to kick down their sandcastle is not really an enjoyable activity for anyone. So yeah, under fozziesov I guess you 'could' take sov as you described but unless you are a masochist why would you want to. Yes, it's mutually assured sovtrolling everyone ends everyone else's 0.0 fantasy. nearly everywhere is unclaimed and unihubbed, or close enough a barren farm and a burnt down field. it's beautiful ^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears. Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
Eugene Kerner TunDraGon Cynosural Field Theory. 1540	Posted - 2015.03.09 21:07:08 - [775] - Quote ...all that fits... how about an inty going >4000 with a 10mn afterburner...good luck tracking that TunDraGon is recruiting! "Also, your boobs [:o] " -á CCP Eterne, 2012 "When in doubt...make a di++k joke."-áRobin Williams - RIP
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 610	Posted - 2015.03.09 21:07:42 - [776] - Quote also wow i didn't even notice the last eft warrior post's terrible dps i just assumed that the ship had alpha-strike capability my expectations for competence here somehow managed to sink even lower lmbo 55.5 seconds to sink an interceptor
Arthur Aihaken X A X 4104	Posted - 2015.03.09 21:07:55 - [777] - Quote Andrea Keuvo wrote: So yeah, under fozziesov I guess you 'could' take sov as you described but unless you are a masochist why would you want to. Bumping miners... smart-bombing pods... shooting rookie ships... ISK doubling scams... ganking... hyperdunking. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Acuma Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic 5	Posted - 2015.03.09 21:08:13 - [778] - Quote Promiscuous Female wrote: PotatoOverdose wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: M1k3y Koontz wrote: https://i.imgur.com/dZoUBJK.jpg 45 DPS at 124km, your interceptor is dead in under a minute (55.5 seconds, yes I did the math) It's also a fifth the cost. Your move. please do not post fits that only kill the interceptor inside of a very short, narrow range where the interceptor would not be in any even remotely plausible pvp scenario basically only post RLML fits, and even then i hope you have 200km+ range "look at the graph it has a point this is where I can guarantee a ship to be at all times" Maulus damps well past any max ceptor lockrange. Can damp 4 trollceptors at once. One cycle --> GG sov lazor. [Insert inevitable "I don't want to have to cycle my ewar module once to lol-troll a bunch of ceptors" comment] /thread interceptor disengages, finds another target it is like you are fundamentally unable to conceive of a situation where there is more than one objective at play even an alliance owning a single system can have up to three Your objective is to spend 20-30 minutes in an active system to waste about 2-4 minutes of the defender and nothing else? Have fun with that.....I will enjoy the countless man hours wasted by these supposed "burn down all of nullsec trollceptors!"
Alavaria Fera GoonWaffe 6579	Posted - 2015.03.09 21:08:13 - [779] - Quote Eugene Kerner wrote: ...all that fits... how about an inty going >4000 with a 10mn afterburner...good luck tracking that There's apparently other ships that go even faster... but shrug, they don't get interdiction nullification which is probably the key i guess ^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears. Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 15434	Posted - 2015.03.09 21:08:14 - [780] - Quote PotatoOverdose wrote: baltec1 wrote: PotatoOverdose wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: PotatoOverdose wrote: Holy ** you're bad. I could link you a ship that owns interceptors up to 150km, and you'll still moan like a stuck pig. And you know what? I'm gonna do just that. Behold the mighty eagle: Eagle: http://imgur.com/KYZDvc5 Eagle vs. MWD Stiletto: http://imgur.com/v537Sv8 185 DPS at 120km 60 DPS at 150km. Uses thorium if you're wondering (don't be bad by using spike). If, by some miracle, the inty locks at 150km, it's fit is so bad that those 60dps will massacre it. Please. Stop. Being. Bad. ah yes the interceptor that is polite enough to sit inside the eagle's optimal long enough to arrive from 14AU away, decelerate from warp, lock, and fire on it Are you really that bad? Read the graph again. http://imgur.com/v537Sv8 With thorium loaded, against a stiletto moving at speed it does 50 dps at 50km 185 dps at 120km 60 dps at 150km THIS KILLS YOUR 150 KM LOCKING INTERCEPTOR IN AN ENVELOPE FROM 50KM to 150km. WHILE IT'S MOVING. AT 5KM/S. 60 dps isnt going to kill anything. These cepters are not going to sit there and pepper them with bb guns, they will eith be out of range when you land our out of range when you lock them. Jesus christ. An interceptor fit to lock AT 150 FRICKEN KILOMETERS DOES NOT HAVE A TANK. 60DPS will murder kill it, If the inty "only" locks at 90km the eagle will kill it with 170 dps. The Cerberus will kill it with 300-400 RLML dps (90km inty, 137km range missile, do the math). Baltec, even you aren't this dumb. Your point is only valit if the cepter doesnt move. Fact is that the cepter will see you in warp and by the time you land and lock it it will be either out of range or off the grid entirely. These things arn't going to stick around and let you pepper them. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship**

EvilweaselFinance BUTTECORP INC Goonswarm Federation 654	Posted - 2015.03.09 21:08:30 - [781] - Quote MASSADEATH wrote: UNFUN? undoing all of CFC and goon sov.... while endlessly sov trolling your area of influence into smaller and smaller chunks? while collecting all the goon PVE tears? well i mean you've already admitted there's no chance this is going to happen with having to place even a single ship at risk so what you're basically saying is that you think this system is so unbalanced that you guys, a collection of poorly-organized pilots who flee in terror from a fight, think you could clear the most occupied region of the game basically, post type 1: you know you can't ever win when there's the possibility you lose, so you want to have ccp make sure you can't possibly lose however while making these posts you need to remember when i'm responding to a post type 2 ("how does interceptors work" or post type 3 ("what is a bore-off i don't understand how someone's time can be worth anything") i'm explaining why different things are wrong so you can't just cherry-pick something from there and drop it in here what those people are arguing (including one guy who used to be in moa and found that so shameful he's now in an n3 pet) is that trollceptors are actually too boring to use so nobody will use them. i'm saying they will. you're trying to put their words in my mouth
PotatoOverdose Royal Black Watch Highlanders DARKNESS. 2638	Posted - 2015.03.09 21:09:02 - [782] - Quote Promiscuous Female wrote: PotatoOverdose wrote: Maulus damps well past any max ceptor lockrange. Can damp 4 trollceptors at once. One cycle --> GG sov lazor. [Insert inevitable "I don't want to have to cycle my ewar module once to lol-troll a bunch of ceptors" comment] /thread interceptor disengages, finds another target it is like you are fundamentally unable to conceive of a situation where there is more than one objective at play even an alliance owning a single system can have up to three Interceptor has another 40 minute timer in which his sov lazor gets damped. It's like you are fundamentally unable to concieve of a situation where an interceptor won't waste 40 minutes after 40 minutes of his life in a futile attempt to capture an occupied system. Troll ceptor only viable for unoccupied and undefended systems. You not being able to hold unoccupied and undefended systems is a good thing. Ergo, troll ceptor not problem.
Alavaria Fera GoonWaffe 6579	Posted - 2015.03.09 21:09:06 - [783] - Quote Acuma wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: PotatoOverdose wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: M1k3y Koontz wrote: https://i.imgur.com/dZoUBJK.jpg 45 DPS at 124km, your interceptor is dead in under a minute (55.5 seconds, yes I did the math) It's also a fifth the cost. Your move. please do not post fits that only kill the interceptor inside of a very short, narrow range where the interceptor would not be in any even remotely plausible pvp scenario basically only post RLML fits, and even then i hope you have 200km+ range "look at the graph it has a point this is where I can guarantee a ship to be at all times" Maulus damps well past any max ceptor lockrange. Can damp 4 trollceptors at once. One cycle --> GG sov lazor. [Insert inevitable "I don't want to have to cycle my ewar module once to lol-troll a bunch of ceptors" comment] /thread interceptor disengages, finds another target it is like you are fundamentally unable to conceive of a situation where there is more than one objective at play even an alliance owning a single system can have up to three Your objective is to spend 20-30 minutes in an active system to waste about 2-4 minutes of the defender and nothing else? Have fun with that.....I will enjoy the countless man hours wasted by these supposed "burn down all of nullsec trollceptors!" wait, i thought moa was going to end our 0.0 nightmare and it was terrifying us... is that not the case anymore? ^^ 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 6579	Posted - 2015.03.09 21:10:19 - [784] - Quote EvilweaselFinance wrote: MASSADEATH wrote: UNFUN? undoing all of CFC and goon sov.... while endlessly sov trolling your area of influence into smaller and smaller chunks? while collecting all the goon PVE tears? well i mean you've already admitted there's no chance this is going to happen with having to place even a single ship at risk so what you're basically saying is that you think this system is so unbalanced that you guys, a collection of poorly-organized pilots who flee in terror from a fight, think you could clear the most occupied region of the game basically, post type 1: you know you can't ever win when there's the possibility you lose, so you want to have ccp make sure you can't possibly lose however while making these posts you need to remember when i'm responding to a post type 2 ("how does interceptors work" or post type 3 ("what is a bore-off i don't understand how someone's time can be worth anything") i'm explaining why different things are wrong so you can't just cherry-pick something from there and drop it in here what those people are arguing (including one guy who used to be in moa and found that so shameful he's now in an n3 pet) is that trollceptors are actually too boring to use so nobody will use them. i'm saying they will. you're trying to put their words in my mouth Worst case scenario: No one but goons bothers, we end everyone else's 0.0 dream Second-best case: everyone bothers, everyone's 0.0 dream is ended ??? Case: no one bothers; status quo (except with more interceptors) ^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears. Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 610	Posted - 2015.03.09 21:10:35 - [785] - Quote Acuma wrote: Your objective is to spend 20-30 minutes in an active system to waste about 2-4 minutes of the defender and nothing else? Have fun with that.....I will enjoy the countless man hours wasted by these supposed "burn down all of nullsec trollceptors!" no, the attacking interceptor gets to disengage within 2m of getting caught for the basic math challenged, 2 minutes is a lot shorter time than 20-30 minutes
PotatoOverdose Royal Black Watch Highlanders DARKNESS. 2638	Posted - 2015.03.09 21:10:45 - [786] - Quote Alavaria Fera wrote: wait, i thought moa was going to end our 0.0 nightmare and it was terrifying us... is that not the case anymore? Idk what any alliance is planning, but the fact that their interceptors scarred you lot for life is hilarious.
EvilweaselFinance BUTTECORP INC Goonswarm Federation 654	Posted - 2015.03.09 21:10:50 - [787] - Quote PotatoOverdose wrote: Interceptor has another 40 minute timer in which his sov lazor gets damped. It's like you are fundamentally unable to concieve of a situation where an interceptor won't waste 40 minutes after 40 minutes of his life in a futile attempt to capture an occupied system. Troll ceptor only viable for unoccupied and undefended systems. You not being able to hold unoccupied and undefended systems is a good thing. Ergo, troll ceptor not problem. could you and your illiterate former alliance mate please get together and agree on if he's going to trollceptor or not
1nverted What Could Go Wrong Overload Everything 0	Posted - 2015.03.09 21:11:06 - [788] - Quote CCP Fozzie wrote: 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? Thanks -Fozzie (emphasis added) Hi Fozzie, I think the majority of the legitimate concerns re the entosis relate to kiting fits that can't be caught. Could there simply be a 3500m/s limit placed on ships using a link? This would preserve kiting comps but would allow 'trollceptors' to be dealt with relatively easily. As to what shiptypes should be able to use the link, I agree that it should be left as open as possible. I disagree with the people saying it should only be used on battlecruisers and battleships. That limitation eliminates some very respectable fleet doctrines that are used in null today. Specifically, assault frigate doctrines like harpies. It also eliminates comps that may yet still become important such as tech 3 destroyers. Small signature comps like harpies and others should remain part of the null-sec sov meta. That said, battleships and battlecruisers will need some love under the new system to offset their low mobility. I have seen elsewhere suggestions of the module coming in small, medium and large sizes. Perhaps the different module sizes could have different cycle times such that battleship modules will cycle faster. This could offset their lower mobility by allowing them to capture command nodes quicker once they do reach a node. Love your work so far, especially how you are going about getting feedback and trying to focus the debate in threads like this. Also thanks for going on the evedownunder show and listening to specific AUTZ concerns!
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 610	Posted - 2015.03.09 21:11:29 - [789] - Quote also fyi the timer can only be 40 minutes if the system has an industrial index of 5 there are no regions in the game with an average industrial index above one except providence
PotatoOverdose Royal Black Watch Highlanders DARKNESS. 2638	Posted - 2015.03.09 21:11:54 - [790] - Quote Promiscuous Female wrote: Acuma wrote: Your objective is to spend 20-30 minutes in an active system to waste about 2-4 minutes of the defender and nothing else? Have fun with that.....I will enjoy the countless man hours wasted by these supposed "burn down all of nullsec trollceptors!" no, the attacking interceptor gets to disengage within 2m of getting caught for the basic math challenged, 2 minutes is a lot shorter time than 20-30 minutes For the basic Math challenged: Ceptor is on minute 38 of his sov lazor. Maulus warps in, damps, warps off. Ceptor never picks up sov lazor again.

Eli Apol Pro Synergy 349	Posted - 2015.03.09 21:12:04 - [791] - Quote Promiscuous Female wrote: Acuma wrote: Your objective is to spend 20-30 minutes in an active system to waste about 2-4 minutes of the defender and nothing else? Have fun with that.....I will enjoy the countless man hours wasted by these supposed "burn down all of nullsec trollceptors!" no, the attacking interceptor gets to disengage within 2m of getting caught for the basic math challenged, 2 minutes is a lot shorter time than 20-30 minutes And for the perfect troll response, you only put the maulus on grid after they wasted 30 minutes already... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_UB1YAsPD6U I mean sure you could do it instantly if you live and use the space actively, but where's the fun in that?
Alavaria Fera GoonWaffe 6579	Posted - 2015.03.09 21:12:16 - [792] - Quote How cute, actually thinking this is properly going to be read with all these posts spewing in. It's like sovtrolling, you gotta be on all the Post Nodes ^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears. Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
EvilweaselFinance BUTTECORP INC Goonswarm Federation 654	Posted - 2015.03.09 21:12:49 - [793] - Quote PotatoOverdose wrote: Idk what any alliance is planning, but the fact that their interceptors scarred you lot for life is hilarious. i suppose i need to add post type 4: "im tired of getting beaten like a rented mule so im going to just invent my own reality", otherwise known as the potato word salad
Baali Tekitsu AQUILA INC Verge of Collapse 698	Posted - 2015.03.09 21:13:02 - [794] - Quote Eugene Kerner wrote: ...all that fits... Based on the average fit quality in this thread none of the alliances posting should hold sov atm and would lose it the first day they would. Basically every argument made so far is "Im too ******** to catch a inty I should hold sov though" RATE LIKE SUBSCRIBE
Alavaria Fera GoonWaffe 6579	Posted - 2015.03.09 21:13:14 - [795] - Quote Promiscuous Female wrote: also fyi the timer can only be 40 minutes if the system has an industrial index of 5 there are no regions in the game with an average industrial index above one except providence Something about mining.... ^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears. Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
Hoshi Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective 54	Posted - 2015.03.09 21:13:46 - [796] - Quote Yes defending your sov should take commitment BUT attacking sov needs to be an equal commitment. Any system that allows someone to troll sov with no commitment and minimal danger is a broken system. "Memories are meant to fade. They're designed that way for a reason."
Ranger 1 Ranger Corp Vae. Victis. 6168	Posted - 2015.03.09 21:14:33 - [797] - Quote EvilweaselFinance wrote: M1k3y Koontz wrote: 45 DPS at 124km, your interceptor is dead in under a minute (55.5 seconds, yes I did the math) It's also a fifth the cost. Your move. Also, yes it has remote sebos. If you can't get two guys together to defend your space against an interceptor in your prime time, what are you doing in sov? post type #2: is unaware of how interceptors work specifically, is unaware that an interceptor is not there 55 seconds later Well, if he's not there then he's someone else's problem. If you are in an alliance that actually only claims the space people live in, that's not an issue. "Hey Fred, he's headed your way. Let him waste about 30 minutes before you stop him eh? I've got a couple of things to do first". or alternatively. "Wow, these 50 trollceptors have been in and out of here a lot over the last hour. Made me come out and stop them twice already. Whose got the next hour?" "Sigh, that's me. I'll finish up what I'm doing and head over there in a half hour to take over. Steve, you're up after me". "Sure, be glad to... I"m just surfin' pron at the moment anyway". 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 610	Posted - 2015.03.09 21:15:21 - [798] - Quote PotatoOverdose wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: Acuma wrote: Your objective is to spend 20-30 minutes in an active system to waste about 2-4 minutes of the defender and nothing else? Have fun with that.....I will enjoy the countless man hours wasted by these supposed "burn down all of nullsec trollceptors!" no, the attacking interceptor gets to disengage within 2m of getting caught for the basic math challenged, 2 minutes is a lot shorter time than 20-30 minutes For the basic Math challenged: Ceptor is on minute 38 of his sov lazor. Maulus warps in, damps, warps off. Ceptor never picks up sov lazor again. the fact that you are resorting to such a restricted, unrealistic vignette is betraying your desperation
Alavaria Fera GoonWaffe 6579	Posted - 2015.03.09 21:15:31 - [799] - Quote Hoshi wrote: Yes defending your sov should take commitment BUT attacking sov needs to be an equal commitment. Any system that allows someone to troll sov with no commitment and minimal danger is a broken system. Change your 0.0 dream to "ending everyone else's 0.0 dream" Join moa in npc null and then end our 0.0 nightmate. Then claim victory and run mordus missions for pancake ships ^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears. Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
EvilweaselFinance BUTTECORP INC Goonswarm Federation 654	Posted - 2015.03.09 21:15:50 - [800] - Quote Ranger 1 wrote: EvilweaselFinance wrote: M1k3y Koontz wrote: 45 DPS at 124km, your interceptor is dead in under a minute (55.5 seconds, yes I did the math) It's also a fifth the cost. Your move. Also, yes it has remote sebos. If you can't get two guys together to defend your space against an interceptor in your prime time, what are you doing in sov? post type #2: is unaware of how interceptors work specifically, is unaware that an interceptor is not there 55 seconds later Well, if he's not there then he's someone else's problem. If you are in an alliance that actually only claims the space people live in, that's not an issue. "Hey Fred, he's headed your way. Let him waste about 30 minutes before you stop him eh? I've got a couple of things to do first". or alternatively. "Wow, these 50 trollceptors have been in and out of here a lot over the last hour. Made me come out and stop them twice already. Whose got the next hour?" "Sigh, that's me. I'll finish up what I'm doing and head over there in a half hour to take over. Steve, you're up after me". "Sure, be glad to... I"m just surfin' pron at the moment anyway". post type 3: lets turn this entire game into a bore-off

Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 613	Posted - 2015.03.09 21:16:11 - [801] - Quote EvilweaselFinance wrote: PotatoOverdose wrote: Idk what any alliance is planning, but the fact that their interceptors scarred you lot for life is hilarious. i suppose i need to add post type 4: "im tired of getting beaten like a rented mule so im going to just invent my own reality", otherwise known as the potato word salad this is funny because potato salad is a real thing
Eli Apol Pro Synergy 349	Posted - 2015.03.09 21:16:28 - [802] - Quote Promiscuous Female wrote: the fact that you are resorting to such a restricted, unrealistic vignette is betraying your desperation Like reducing a mechanic down to just one (attempted) troll use of it?
Alavaria Fera GoonWaffe 6582	Posted - 2015.03.09 21:16:49 - [803] - Quote Promiscuous Female wrote: PotatoOverdose wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: Acuma wrote: Your objective is to spend 20-30 minutes in an active system to waste about 2-4 minutes of the defender and nothing else? Have fun with that.....I will enjoy the countless man hours wasted by these supposed "burn down all of nullsec trollceptors!" no, the attacking interceptor gets to disengage within 2m of getting caught for the basic math challenged, 2 minutes is a lot shorter time than 20-30 minutes For the basic Math challenged: Ceptor is on minute 38 of his sov lazor. Maulus warps in, damps, warps off. Ceptor never picks up sov lazor again. the fact that you are resorting to such a restricted, unrealistic vignette is betraying your desperation So basically... our 0.0 dream won't be ended by moa after we damp them a few times? No, this can't be... massadeath promised it would be over... ^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears. Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 613	Posted - 2015.03.09 21:17:17 - [804] - Quote Eli Apol wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: the fact that you are resorting to such a restricted, unrealistic vignette is betraying your desperation Like reducing a mechanic down to just one (attempted) troll use of it? there's no desperation in pointing out that interceptors are unbalanced in fozziesov it's a little thing i like to call "objective fact"
Yroc Jannseen Enlightened Industries Goonswarm Federation 68	Posted - 2015.03.09 21:17:26 - [805] - Quote PotatoOverdose wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: PotatoOverdose wrote: Maulus damps well past any max ceptor lockrange. Can damp 4 trollceptors at once. One cycle --> GG sov lazor. [Insert inevitable "I don't want to have to cycle my ewar module once to lol-troll a bunch of ceptors" comment] /thread interceptor disengages, finds another target it is like you are fundamentally unable to conceive of a situation where there is more than one objective at play even an alliance owning a single system can have up to three Interceptor has another 40 minute timer in which his sov lazor gets damped. It's like you are fundamentally unable to concieve of a situation where an interceptor won't waste 40 minutes after 40 minutes of his life in a futile attempt to capture an occupied system. Troll ceptor only viable for unoccupied and undefended systems. You not being able to hold unoccupied and undefended systems is a good thing. Ergo, troll ceptor not problem. You keep throwing this 40 minute number around. How many systems do you really think are going to have industry 5? Do you think this is enough motivation to get people out and mine the ludicrous amount that's required to reach and maintain industry 5?
PotatoOverdose Royal Black Watch Highlanders DARKNESS. 2638	Posted - 2015.03.09 21:17:28 - [806] - Quote EvilweaselFinance wrote: post type 3: lets turn this entire game into a bore-off Post type 4: Cycling my damps once is too boring!!! I'll throw in another one free of charge: Post type 5: Grrrrrrr In-terrr-sep-torrrrrrrr, Grrrrrrrr.
Jenn aSide Smokin Aces. 10146	Posted - 2015.03.09 21:17:38 - [807] - Quote EvilweaselFinance wrote: MASSADEATH wrote: UNFUN? undoing all of CFC and goon sov.... while endlessly sov trolling your area of influence into smaller and smaller chunks? while collecting all the goon PVE tears? well i mean you've already admitted there's no chance this is going to happen with having to place even a single ship at risk so what you're basically saying is that you think this system is so unbalanced that you guys, a collection of poorly-organized pilots who flee in terror from a fight, think you could clear the most occupied region of the game What you are describing is what happens in all of these discussions, and why the discussions never have the kind of value they should. Someone comes up with an ides, some group (usually goons) WARNS everyone who things will be abused. People biased against that group "or all groups of that type) instantly believe there is some self serving ulterior motive and thus fail to heed the warning. If the change then happens and the big group then proceeds to do exactly what they warned they would, the dumb people who didn't heed the warning use it as another reason to hate the big group lol. If it weren't so sad, it would be funny. Personally, I'm just bookmarking posts to be trotted out in the months after all these changes happen. Realized a long time ago (in real life) that it's fruitless to tell a dreamer type person (or a kid ) that a bright idea they have isn't going to work. Much better to let them fail and teach them why after the fact.
Ines Tegator Serious Business Inc. Ltd. LLC. etc. 584	Posted - 2015.03.09 21:17:48 - [808] - Quote CCP Fozzie wrote: 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. This is a good goal. It's also a bad design strategy, and as a result the goal will never be achieved. When EVERYTHING can use the sovlaser, EVERYTHING affects it's balance. From a design standpoint, there's no way to balance the sovlaser in a direct, targeted manner. It absolutely must place severe restrictions on the ship using it. That, or be limited to certain ship types, or even one ship type. Personally, I prefer putting restricions on the module. Deactivating prop mods while active would be ideal, since it affects the rest of the fit only slightly but makes the sovlaser ship vulnerable to all types of conventional counters. Overhaul Dscan! Make your own rules - Noobs to Null / Casual Vets Corp
PotatoOverdose Royal Black Watch Highlanders DARKNESS. 2638	Posted - 2015.03.09 21:18:38 - [809] - Quote Yroc Jannseen wrote: You keep throwing this 40 minute number around. How many systems do you really think are going to have industry 5? Do you think this is enough motivation to get people out and mine the ludicrous amount that's required to reach and maintain industry 5? It's about as ludicrous as the hypothetical 150km locking interceptors that people are tossing around.
EvilweaselFinance BUTTECORP INC Goonswarm Federation 657	Posted - 2015.03.09 21:18:52 - [810] - Quote PotatoOverdose wrote: EvilweaselFinance wrote: post type 3: lets turn this entire game into a bore-off Post type 4: Cycling my damps once is too boring!!! I'll throw in another one free of charge: Post type 5: Grrrrrrr In-terrr-sep-torrrrrrrr, Grrrrrrrr. "potato word salad" post, mixed in with trying to make "fetch" happen (it's not going to happen)

Eli Apol Pro Synergy 349	Posted - 2015.03.09 21:18:59 - [811] - Quote Promiscuous Female wrote: Eli Apol wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: the fact that you are resorting to such a restricted, unrealistic vignette is betraying your desperation Like reducing a mechanic down to just one (attempted) troll use of it? there's no desperation in pointing out that interceptors are unbalanced in fozziesov it's a little thing i like to call "objective fact" Your 'objective fact' which is STILL countered by a T1 ewar frig...as it was from about page 5 of the original threadnaught.
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 613	Posted - 2015.03.09 21:19:05 - [812] - Quote PotatoOverdose wrote: Yroc Jannseen wrote: You keep throwing this 40 minute number around. How many systems do you really think are going to have industry 5? Do you think this is enough motivation to get people out and mine the ludicrous amount that's required to reach and maintain industry 5? It's about as ludicrous as the hypothetical 150km locking interceptors that people are tossing around. nice hyperbole
Veskrashen Justified Chaos Spaceship Bebop 758	Posted - 2015.03.09 21:19:08 - [813] - Quote Promiscuous Female wrote: Eli Apol wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: the fact that you are resorting to such a restricted, unrealistic vignette is betraying your desperation Like reducing a mechanic down to just one (attempted) troll use of it? there's no desperation in pointing out that interceptors are unbalanced in fozziesov it's a little thing i like to call "objective fact" Otherwise known as "your own unsubstantiated opinion", yes. We Gallente have a saying: "CCP created the Gallente Militia to train the Fighters..."
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 613	Posted - 2015.03.09 21:19:54 - [814] - Quote Eli Apol wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: Eli Apol wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: the fact that you are resorting to such a restricted, unrealistic vignette is betraying your desperation Like reducing a mechanic down to just one (attempted) troll use of it? there's no desperation in pointing out that interceptors are unbalanced in fozziesov it's a little thing i like to call "objective fact" Your 'objective fact' which is STILL countered by a T1 ewar frig...as it was from about page 5 of the original threadnaught. nah i'll reiterate it since you are slow interceptor warp speed > maulus warp speed
Alavaria Fera GoonWaffe 6582	Posted - 2015.03.09 21:20:19 - [815] - Quote Jenn aSide wrote: EvilweaselFinance wrote: MASSADEATH wrote: UNFUN? undoing all of CFC and goon sov.... while endlessly sov trolling your area of influence into smaller and smaller chunks? while collecting all the goon PVE tears? well i mean you've already admitted there's no chance this is going to happen with having to place even a single ship at risk so what you're basically saying is that you think this system is so unbalanced that you guys, a collection of poorly-organized pilots who flee in terror from a fight, think you could clear the most occupied region of the game What you are describing is what happens in all of these discussions, and why the discussions never have the kind of value they should. Someone comes up with an ides, some group (usually goons) WARNS everyone who things will be abused. People biased against that group "or all groups of that type) instantly believe there is some self serving ulterior motive and thus fail to heed the warning. If the change then happens and the big group then proceeds to do exactly what they warned they would, the dumb people who didn't heed the warning use it as another reason to hate the big group lol. If it weren't so sad, it would be funny. Personally, I'm just bookmarking posts to be trotted out in the months after all these changes happen. Realized a long time ago (in real life) that it's fruitless to tell a dreamer type person (or a kid ) that a bright idea they have isn't going to work. Much better to let them fail and teach them why after the fact. Sigh I'm not sure if our 0.0 dream will be ended by moa or not, this is quite problematic as I want to know if i should start heavy emotional investment into something like star citizen. there's no point if massadeath can't deliver on his promise to end our 0.0 nightmare by the way it won't matter, did you bookmark posts on the fatigue thing? because haha that sure shook up our sov (after we sold it to the coalition that exists to destroy us) ^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears. Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
Eli Apol Pro Synergy 349	Posted - 2015.03.09 21:20:24 - [816] - Quote Promiscuous Female wrote: Eli Apol wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: Eli Apol wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: the fact that you are resorting to such a restricted, unrealistic vignette is betraying your desperation Like reducing a mechanic down to just one (attempted) troll use of it? there's no desperation in pointing out that interceptors are unbalanced in fozziesov it's a little thing i like to call "objective fact" Your 'objective fact' which is STILL countered by a T1 ewar frig...as it was from about page 5 of the original threadnaught. nah i'll reiterate it since you are slow interceptor warp speed > maulus warp speed defender cap speed > attacker cap speed HINT: CAPTURING POINTS WILL TAKE MORE TIME THAN WARPING BETWEEN THEM
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 613	Posted - 2015.03.09 21:21:10 - [817] - Quote Veskrashen wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: Eli Apol wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: the fact that you are resorting to such a restricted, unrealistic vignette is betraying your desperation Like reducing a mechanic down to just one (attempted) troll use of it? there's no desperation in pointing out that interceptors are unbalanced in fozziesov it's a little thing i like to call "objective fact" Otherwise known as "your own unsubstantiated opinion", yes. interceptors have <=2s align, 120km lock range, superlative speed and signature radius at speed these are facts, sorry to say
PotatoOverdose Royal Black Watch Highlanders DARKNESS. 2638	Posted - 2015.03.09 21:21:40 - [818] - Quote Promiscuous Female wrote: PotatoOverdose wrote: Yroc Jannseen wrote: You keep throwing this 40 minute number around. How many systems do you really think are going to have industry 5? Do you think this is enough motivation to get people out and mine the ludicrous amount that's required to reach and maintain industry 5? It's about as ludicrous as the hypothetical 150km locking interceptors that people are tossing around. nice hyperbole given that people mentioned 250km ceptors repeatedly, not hyperbole at all. But fine, just for you: 110km Ceptors with a T2 sov lazor on top. Still ludicrous, still gets rekt by a damp from a maulus,
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 613	Posted - 2015.03.09 21:22:14 - [819] - Quote Eli Apol wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: nah i'll reiterate it since you are slow interceptor warp speed > maulus warp speed defender cap speed > attacker cap speed disengage and move to next cap point feel free to stop any time, I need to free up my clipboard for other things if you would be so kind
Eli Apol Pro Synergy 349	Posted - 2015.03.09 21:23:21 - [820] - Quote Promiscuous Female wrote: Eli Apol wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: nah i'll reiterate it since you are slow interceptor warp speed > maulus warp speed defender cap speed > attacker cap speed disengage and move to next cap point feel free to stop any time, I need to free up my clipboard for other things if you would be so kind ad nauseam arguments are all you have left. I'm out - was glad dismantling you today, look forward to doing it again in 3 months :)

Alavaria Fera GoonWaffe 6582	Posted - 2015.03.09 21:23:34 - [821] - Quote No, they won't stop posting, only disengage and move to another set of goalposts ^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears. Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
Gizznitt Malikite Agony Unleashed Agony Empire 4241	Posted - 2015.03.09 21:23:38 - [822] - Quote Andrea Keuvo wrote: Gizznitt Malikite wrote: FT Diomedes wrote: Gizznitt Malikite wrote: FT Diomedes wrote: All these proponents of the system keep thinking in terms of a 1v1. "I counter your off-grid boosted trollceptor with my Cerberus and my cyno alt in a Maulus." Yes, Dominion sovereignty might not be perfect, but it is a damn site better than the above. The offensive power of Fozzie Sovereignty is completely out of balance. The defender has to be able to defend everywhere, but has no opportunity to fortify or entrench his position. Some might say, "but the same thing will happen now!" This is simply untrue. For one, in Dominion, the offense has to commit significant assets to stage an attack. Yes, if someone brings fifty supers to the fight, A may have a problem. But if fifty supers come to the fight, A can request help from friendly alliance C and we get a big fight, or a massive blue-ball fest (that at least has the advantage of only being once, not every day). In Fozzieland, if C tries to help A against B, D will entosis C's stuff. And don't forget that anyone who comes to help probably gets Space Aids. Thank you, Fozzie. Your example is flawed for several reasons: 1.) Small alliance A doesn't hold space in the current sov system. Perhaps big brother coalition C gives them a system (for a fee), but they will never truly own space unless they themselves can bring a huge force to attack. 2.) Alliance A is the underdog, and will lose space against bigger B. So what. They can then attempt to take it back, especially if alliance B doesn't bother to utilize it. Currently, if Big Bad Alliance B takes your sov, you can't do **** about it. 3.) With the 48 hour reinforcement window, Alliance A can call in all the backup they want. It's only a minor change in tactics for them to have an alliance A member in each backup fleet. (1) Alliance A can hold space in the current system, with big brother coalition C's support. The fee is paid in military service. (2) Then how are small alliances going to gain a foothold? They cannot. They will get roflstomped by anyone large enough to want to destroy their stuff. (3) Alliance A calls for backup from Alliance C. Alliance C moves pilots over. Now honorable third parties D, E, and F, join the fun and hit C's space while they are away. D, E, and F risk nothing, because they come from NPC space or low sec. Or from a coalition so large that it can send off a bunch of pilots during prime time. In short, you will have a lot of stuff burn after this patch. Nothing will be rebuilt. Coalitions will hold the money moons and one or two critical areas where they continue to build supercapitals. Everyone else will get burned out of space in short order. Low sec and NPC nullsec are the real beneficiaries of the new system. The existing coalitions will become larger and more powerful, but 0.0 space on the whole will be more empty. Unless of course, 800k new subscribers suddenly decide to start playing tomorrow and the PCU goes up to 100k. Which all trends indicate won't happen. In the current system, there is only one way small alliances hold space: They are serfs to larger groups. They pay with military service, rental agreements, or whatever. But they have NO ABILITY to stand on their own with the current mechanics. In the new system, small alliances can attack unused systems and break down an overstretched alliances hold. They might not even bother "claiming" the space, but simply live there and continually prevent big alliance form using it. Sure, they might periodically lose there space at the whims of big bully alliance B, but that's no different than now. The difference is they can actually attack sov without bluing half the galaxy. Are you really complaining that alliance C has to weigh the risks of third partying a distant fight with their own home defense? That's a great thing for them to have to consider, and if alliance A has their space rolled because they can't bring in a big brother to help defend their space, that is also a good thing! The important piece that you are missing is that unless the small alliance goes through the logistical pain in the ass that is bringing in freighter sized sov upgrades that system that they took is literally useless to them. Without the sov upgrades they cannot even earn hisec level income, and replacing freighter sized sov upgrades every time big bully alliance B decides to kick down their sandcastle is not really an enjoyable activity for anyone. So yeah, under fozziesov I guess you 'could' take sov as you described but unless you are a masochist why would you want to. So the problem is the value of space, not the new sov mechanics then... I'm alright with increasing the base utility of space before upgrades. I personally think a single fully upgraded system should support 20 or so ratters.
Alavaria Fera GoonWaffe 6582	Posted - 2015.03.09 21:24:22 - [823] - Quote I must say, it looks like now the argument is "you need to have 3x the numbers of someone to end their 0.0 dream" If so, then moa will need some help to end our 0.0 dream. ^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears. Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 613	Posted - 2015.03.09 21:24:28 - [824] - Quote Eli Apol wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: Eli Apol wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: nah i'll reiterate it since you are slow interceptor warp speed > maulus warp speed defender cap speed > attacker cap speed disengage and move to next cap point feel free to stop any time, I need to free up my clipboard for other things if you would be so kind ad nauseam arguments are all you have left some people need to have things repeated to them in order to understand them some more than others i guess
EvilweaselFinance BUTTECORP INC Goonswarm Federation 657	Posted - 2015.03.09 21:24:51 - [825] - Quote Eli Apol wrote: I'm out - was glad dismantling you today, look forward to doing it again in 3 months :) post type 4, potato word salad
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 613	Posted - 2015.03.09 21:25:19 - [826] - Quote Alavaria Fera wrote: No, they won't stop posting, only disengage and move to another set of goalposts :vince:
Erasmus Grant EVE University Ivy League 20	Posted - 2015.03.09 21:25:35 - [827] - Quote Demos at Fanfest!?! You must have some kind of demo ready!
Bienator II madmen of the skies 3201	Posted - 2015.03.09 21:25:43 - [828] - Quote i would just release it as is, watch the apocalypse for 6 weeks and adjust it when required later. troll[insert ship type] is only effective in space you do not live in. So own as much space as you can defend #probemSolved. we already have the case study out there. Running for 6 years or so. FW farmers (in stabbed cloaky "troll" fits) can only influence sov of empty systems. They do not work in home or staging systems (speak: defended systems). The only real difference is that there are no freeports in FW, which means with current game population there is always more space owned by a militia as they can defend. Null is different. So release it and see what happens, adjust later (the part you forgot doing for FW). how to fix eve: 1) remove ECM 2) rename dampeners to ECM 3) add new anti-drone ewar for caldari 4) give offgrid boosters ongrid combat value
Eli Apol Pro Synergy 349	Posted - 2015.03.09 21:25:49 - [829] - Quote Promiscuous Female wrote: some people need to have things repeated to them in order to understand them some more than others i guess One last bite. 40 minute capture time. 10 minute to undo that capture. How many warps does my maulus need to do to end up 30 minutes behind your ceptor? Fin.
Tycho VI Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective 7	Posted - 2015.03.09 21:26:17 - [830] - Quote Maybe a viable solution is just really simple....Remove Interdiction nullification from intys...

KIller Wabbit The Scope Gallente Federation 912	Posted - 2015.03.09 21:26:23 - [831] - Quote SilentAsTheGrave wrote: EvilweaselFinance wrote: SilentAsTheGrave wrote: Ann Markson wrote: While the Trolleceptor thing itself is a useless rage it adresses another issue. Currently the majority of Sov Null systems is worth **. CCP has the info and they are seeing boat loads of ISK being made in null. As in a LOT*! Sorry this ruins your argument. ccp are the drunk guy looking for his keys under the streetlight and not where he lost them isk itself is mostly generated in null. wealth does not correlate to isk generated: a miner makes ore, not isk, a mission runner makes LP, not isk, a manufacturer makes items, not isk those things then get CONVERTED to isk, but figuring out what that means income-wise is hard so CCP has just looked at raw isk generated and ignored all the other ways you make income. They have the hard data, you don't. I get your trying to spin this to make it sound like everyone in null is going broke, yet evidence is shown this is not the case. Not just hard data for CCP's eyes, but as a normal player I see coalitions full of super capitals and other 'bling bling' type stuff. You guys even refer to losing 250 billion ISK to a thief as 'chump change and doesn't affect the goon bottom line.'* So tell me, which is it. You are rich or you are poor? Because you can't flip flop around depending on the subject. If you are the later then maybe you should start to question why your leadership is hording all the money while you starve. Well said. They had better happy with what they have. CCP is definitely waging an income nerf war. The NullSec trough has been way to generous for years compared to CCP's bottom line.
Terra Chrall Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire 13	Posted - 2015.03.09 21:26:51 - [832] - Quote Alavaria Fera wrote: Worst case scenario: No one but goons bothers, we end everyone else's 0.0 dream Second-best case: everyone bothers, everyone's 0.0 dream is ended ??? Case: no one bothers; status quo (except with more interceptors) Or: People learn how to counter the fast frigate skirmisher or chase them off from used systems. The fast frigate removes Sov from the un-protected unused systems. New corps and alliances move into Null to fill the void. This adds new content, new conflicts, new power struggles... Yeah I see how there are a lot of directions this could go. Good thing CCP won't let your first 2 scenarios happen as they have stated they will adjust the system to make sure it works and doesn't break everything.
SilentAsTheGrave Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective 73	Posted - 2015.03.09 21:26:59 - [833] - Quote Promiscuous Female wrote: Eli Apol wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: Eli Apol wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: the fact that you are resorting to such a restricted, unrealistic vignette is betraying your desperation Like reducing a mechanic down to just one (attempted) troll use of it? there's no desperation in pointing out that interceptors are unbalanced in fozziesov it's a little thing i like to call "objective fact" Your 'objective fact' which is STILL countered by a T1 ewar frig...as it was from about page 5 of the original threadnaught. nah i'll reiterate it since you are slow interceptor warp speed > maulus warp speed And when someone else is already at your new destination ready to send your precious interceptors back to the Stone Age? Or when you start losing sov because you felt contesting sov on the other side of the map was more important?
Ranger 1 Ranger Corp Vae. Victis. 6168	Posted - 2015.03.09 21:27:21 - [834] - Quote EvilweaselFinance wrote: Ranger 1 wrote: EvilweaselFinance wrote: M1k3y Koontz wrote: 45 DPS at 124km, your interceptor is dead in under a minute (55.5 seconds, yes I did the math) It's also a fifth the cost. Your move. Also, yes it has remote sebos. If you can't get two guys together to defend your space against an interceptor in your prime time, what are you doing in sov? post type #2: is unaware of how interceptors work specifically, is unaware that an interceptor is not there 55 seconds later Well, if he's not there then he's someone else's problem. If you are in an alliance that actually only claims the space people live in, that's not an issue. "Hey Fred, he's headed your way. Let him waste about 30 minutes before you stop him eh? I've got a couple of things to do first". or alternatively. "Wow, these 50 trollceptors have been in and out of here a lot over the last hour. Made me come out and stop them twice already. Whose got the next hour?" "Sigh, that's me. I'll finish up what I'm doing and head over there in a half hour to take over. Steve, you're up after me". "Sure, be glad to... I"m just surfin' pron at the moment anyway". post type 3: lets turn this entire game into a bore-off Post type 4: Lets over use the word bore and apply it to people mostly being free to do what they always do anyway... for effect. Being a momentary inconvenience for one of the dozen guys in local isn't really boring, except possibly for you. View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents.
Ranafal Rezeda Supplements Rezeda Regnum 46	Posted - 2015.03.09 21:27:30 - [835] - Quote OMFG, 40 pages and still no solution for trollceptor? 1) Just allow to anchor one (only one) sentry gun near every object which can be "reinforced". 2) This sentry gun should be extremely simple, and very similar to gate ones - it just applies 100% of its damage at distance up to 250km and ignores completely target's speed, transversal, signature etc. 3) This sentry gun should do LOW dps, probably about 100-200 dps and have about 1000 EHP, so 1-2 ceptors and 1-2 logsits should be able to kill it easily in several minutes (or just ignore its dps). Of course it can be killed without any reinforce - just as a usual ship in space. 4) But it will still not allow a _single_ trollceptor to get his entosis link start capture because 2 minutes mean that trollceptor will get several thousands of damage before capture will start - and this damage and dps will not depend on trollceptor speed, signature, distance etc. 5) You can also add some reasonable conditions for anchoring this sentry gun - say, Anchoring 5lvl, and strategic index >=2. You can also require to own TCU in the given system to be able to anchor such sentry near every reinforceabe object. This will make sense in having TCU, strategic index, skills.
Alavaria Fera GoonWaffe 6583	Posted - 2015.03.09 21:27:35 - [836] - Quote Bienator II wrote: i would just release it as is, watch the apocalypse for 6 weeks and adjust it when required later. troll[insert ship type] is only effective in space you do not live in. So own as much space as you can defend #probemSolved. we already have the case study out there. Running for 6 years or so. FW farmers (in stabbed cloaky "troll" fits) can only influence sov of empty systems. They do not work in home or staging systems (speak: defended systems). The only real difference is that there are no freeports in FW, which means with current game population there is always more space owned by a militia as they can defend. Null is different. So release it and see what happens, adjust later (the part you forgot doing for FW). So we also have the case study out there it won't be adjusted ^^ 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 314	Posted - 2015.03.09 21:27:41 - [837] - Quote PotatoOverdose wrote: For the basic Math challenged: Ceptor is on minute 38 of his sov lazor. Maulus warps in, damps, warps off. Ceptor never picks up sov lazor again. For the basic math challenged: 40 minutes requires Sov Indices of 5/5/5. In all of EVE, there is no system like that. The most heavily-defended sov indices anywhere outside of Providence (which manages, I believe, a few systems with an industrial index of 2) produces a timer of 27m. So keep planning on responding at minute 38. In addition, damping the aggressor at minute 38 does not reset the structure to 0. It leaves the structure 95% RF'd. (38/40) The attacker needs only 2 minutes to re-establish link, and another 2 minutes (in the mythical 5/5/5 system) of continued operation to finish the process. Now, this only requires 2 minutes + 9 minutes, 30 seconds (95% of 10 minutes), or 11:30 of defensive entosising to undo. But during those 11:30, the response ship isn't chasing the interceptor. If there's a reasonably-sized defensive group, yes, the interceptor's work can be undone. If not, though, then after being 'chased off' from the structure, he'll hit another one, forcing the maulus to follow behind. What happens next depends entirely on how intelligent the maulus pilot is. If the maulus gives immediate chase, the interceptor pilot will burn about 3 minutes of travel away - assuming the maulus continues to give chase. He'll do this in a way that encourages the maulus to follow - delaying when he jumps, delaying when he drops cloak and warps off, etc. He'll then proceed to continue burning away, but do so with an eye toward losing the maulus - warp to a planet near a gate and doubleback, etc. At that point, he burns back to that structure, which does not send up another warning ping until his first cycle of 2m has completed. If the maulus has not already doubled back a fair chunk of the way, the RF will complete before he can interrupt again. If, on the other hand, the maulus immediately entosises his own structure to repair the link damage, the interceptor will begin the process at another structure, which will ping after 2 minutes (again, the completion of his first cycle). This will come shortly after the maulus's first cycle completes, which means the maulus pilot will only have enough time in re-linking as it took the interceptor pilot to find a new target. The maulus pilot should not respond to the new ping. Finish the repairs, then respond. It will take less time to undo the linkage. An intelligent maulus pilot will be able to follow and counter the work of a single interceptor pretty consistently this way. Here's the problem: This hinges on that important concept: 'an intelligent maulus pilot'. The maulus pilot, being human, is probably an idiot. Most of us are. vOv
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 613	Posted - 2015.03.09 21:28:24 - [838] - Quote SilentAsTheGrave wrote: And when someone else is already at your new destination ready to send your precious interceptors back to the Stone Age? Or when you start losing sov because you felt contesting sov on the other side of the map was more important? disproportionate response by defenders to a single attacker
EvilweaselFinance BUTTECORP INC Goonswarm Federation 663	Posted - 2015.03.09 21:29:39 - [839] - Quote Eli Apol wrote: 40 minute capture time. i see you're not actually leaving, but there are virtually no systems with 40 minute capture time. 27.5m is the maximum you'll see except for the rare mining system. more to the point though, all you're doing is trying to justify a bore-off.
Eli Apol Pro Synergy 349	Posted - 2015.03.09 21:30:24 - [840] - Quote Arrendis wrote: PotatoOverdose wrote: For the basic Math challenged: Ceptor is on minute 38 of his sov lazor. Maulus warps in, damps, warps off. Ceptor never picks up sov lazor again. For the basic math challenged: 40 minutes requires Sov Indices of 5/5/5. In all of EVE, there is no system like that. The most heavily-defended sov indices anywhere outside of Providence (which manages, I believe, a few systems with an industrial index of 2) produces a timer of 27m. So keep planning on responding at minute 38. In addition, damping the aggressor at minute 38 does not reset the structure to 0. It leaves the structure 95% RF'd. (38/40) The attacker needs only 2 minutes to re-establish link, and another 2 minutes (in the mythical 5/5/5 system) of continued operation to finish the process. Now, this only requires 2 minutes + 9 minutes, 30 seconds (95% of 10 minutes), or 11:30 of defensive entosising to undo. But during those 11:30, the response ship isn't chasing the interceptor. If there's a reasonably-sized defensive group, yes, the interceptor's work can be undone. If not, though, then after being 'chased off' from the structure, he'll hit another one, forcing the maulus to follow behind. What happens next depends entirely on how intelligent the maulus pilot is. If the maulus gives immediate chase, the interceptor pilot will burn about 3 minutes of travel away - assuming the maulus continues to give chase. He'll do this in a way that encourages the maulus to follow - delaying when he jumps, delaying when he drops cloak and warps off, etc. He'll then proceed to continue burning away, but do so with an eye toward losing the maulus - warp to a planet near a gate and doubleback, etc. At that point, he burns back to that structure, which does not send up another warning ping until his first cycle of 2m has completed. If the maulus has not already doubled back a fair chunk of the way, the RF will complete before he can interrupt again. So what you're saying is that the maulus pilots only need to spend a fraction of the time sitting/orbitting a structure to undo this troll... And of course you assume that the maulus pilot isn't just a local bear that docked up and swapped ships quickly to defend his current system rather than chasing the interceptor to systems...that aren't his system? Genius.

Alavaria Fera GoonWaffe 6583	Posted - 2015.03.09 21:30:33 - [841] - Quote EvilweaselFinance wrote: Eli Apol wrote: 40 minute capture time. i see you're not actually leaving, but there are virtually no systems with 40 minute capture time. 27.5m is the maximum you'll see except for the rare mining system. more to the point though, all you're doing is trying to justify a bore-off. Boredom is an important part of the eve meta Just as one applies dps to destroy a hull, one applies boredom to remove the pilot ^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears. Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
EvilweaselFinance BUTTECORP INC Goonswarm Federation 663	Posted - 2015.03.09 21:30:47 - [842] - Quote KIller Wabbit wrote: Well said. They had better happy with what they have. CCP is definitely waging an income nerf war. The NullSec trough has been way to generous for years compared to CCP's bottom line. dinsdale? is that you?
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 613	Posted - 2015.03.09 21:30:53 - [843] - Quote Eli Apol wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: some people need to have things repeated to them in order to understand them some more than others i guess One last bite. 40 minute capture time. 10 minute to undo that capture. How many warps does my maulus need to do to end up 30 minutes behind your ceptor? Fin. 40 minute cap time is extremely rare, only 2 systems in deklein even fit that territory and lol for the rest of the universe here is the secret wisdom even if the attacker manages to accomplish nothing, he still wins, and at no time did he ever risk anything
MASSADEATH MASS A DEATH Mordus Angels 69	Posted - 2015.03.09 21:30:57 - [844] - Quote Ranger 1 wrote: EvilweaselFinance wrote: M1k3y Koontz wrote: 45 DPS at 124km, your interceptor is dead in under a minute (55.5 seconds, yes I did the math) It's also a fifth the cost. Your move. Also, yes it has remote sebos. If you can't get two guys together to defend your space against an interceptor in your prime time, what are you doing in sov? post type #2: is unaware of how interceptors work specifically, is unaware that an interceptor is not there 55 seconds later Well, if he's not there then he's someone else's problem. If you are in an alliance that actually only claims the space people live in, that's not an issue. "Hey Fred, he's headed your way. Let him waste about 30 minutes before you stop him eh? I've got a couple of things to do first". or alternatively. "Wow, these 50 trollceptors have been in and out of here a lot over the last hour. Made me come out and stop them twice already. Whose got the next hour?" "Sigh, that's me. I'll finish up what I'm doing and head over there in a half hour to take over. Steve, you're up after me". "Sure, be glad to... I"m just surfin' pron at the moment anyway". You are not understanding the goons fear.... they know what will happen...just like the way we hunt thier ratters.... you start to sov troll...they respond... we counter drop...blap thier response fleet .....rinse and repeat... UNLESS they respond in blob numbers they fail.... and in that case you dont counter drop them..you just move onto the next system.... its AWESOME... but they cant do that all over the place...thats the crux ... we can decide what areas to attack..... however they can only respond to a few....not all..... the ones they dont respond too will fall... until they reach an equilibrium of the size of space they can respond too... you see.... they dont want to lose any ratting space..... IF They do.... infighting begins..who can rat where...you stole my rats..... ect ect.... i dont have enough rats....you took my rats... you have to understand that each CFC alliance has their own ratting space..that will turn crappy if they lose their bonus's who has bets on what CFC alliance is booted first? I put money on SMA
SilentAsTheGrave Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective 73	Posted - 2015.03.09 21:31:10 - [845] - Quote Quote: The offensive power of Fozzie Sovereignty is completely out of balance. The defender has to be able to defend everywhere, but has no opportunity to fortify or entrench his position. Then stop trying to have sov everywhere. Just take what you need and can defend. The concept is not new or difficult to grasp.
Eli Apol Pro Synergy 349	Posted - 2015.03.09 21:31:37 - [846] - Quote EvilweaselFinance wrote: Eli Apol wrote: 40 minute capture time. i see you're not actually leaving, but there are virtually no systems with 40 minute capture time. 27.5m is the maximum you'll see except for the rare mining system. more to the point though, all you're doing is trying to justify a bore-off. I'm using the maximum for effect - we can do 27minutes instead and still have a 29:12 ratio of time wasted by the trollceptor pilot versus the defender. Point still stands. edit: And just done with replying to the ship-toaster not the thread in general :)
Erasmus Grant EVE University Ivy League 20	Posted - 2015.03.09 21:32:35 - [847] - Quote Guess the one or two post I made suggesting that Battle-cruisers should be the smallest ship that can fit an E-Link is too vocal. Guess I will no longer give feedback anymore.
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 613	Posted - 2015.03.09 21:33:04 - [848] - Quote i do like how the conversation has morphed into an excruciating exploration of whose time is more wasted this is surely relevant to the point that interceptors can do what they do without risking death
EvilweaselFinance BUTTECORP INC Goonswarm Federation 663	Posted - 2015.03.09 21:33:25 - [849] - Quote MASSADEATH wrote: You are not understanding the goons fear.... they know what will happen...just like the way we hunt thier ratters.... so poorly that deklein remains the most heavily ratted region in the game by far, as admitted by noted goon propagandist gevlon goblin?
Ranger 1 Ranger Corp Vae. Victis. 6168	Posted - 2015.03.09 21:33:37 - [850] - Quote Arrendis wrote: PotatoOverdose wrote: For the basic Math challenged: Ceptor is on minute 38 of his sov lazor. Maulus warps in, damps, warps off. Ceptor never picks up sov lazor again. For the basic math challenged: 40 minutes requires Sov Indices of 5/5/5. In all of EVE, there is no system like that. The most heavily-defended sov indices anywhere outside of Providence (which manages, I believe, a few systems with an industrial index of 2) produces a timer of 27m. So keep planning on responding at minute 38. In addition, damping the aggressor at minute 38 does not reset the structure to 0. It leaves the structure 95% RF'd. (38/40) The attacker needs only 2 minutes to re-establish link, and another 2 minutes (in the mythical 5/5/5 system) of continued operation to finish the process. Now, this only requires 2 minutes + 9 minutes, 30 seconds (95% of 10 minutes), or 11:30 of defensive entosising to undo. But during those 11:30, the response ship isn't chasing the interceptor. If there's a reasonably-sized defensive group, yes, the interceptor's work can be undone. If not, though, then after being 'chased off' from the structure, he'll hit another one, forcing the maulus to follow behind. What happens next depends entirely on how intelligent the maulus pilot is. If the maulus gives immediate chase, the interceptor pilot will burn about 3 minutes of travel away - assuming the maulus continues to give chase. He'll do this in a way that encourages the maulus to follow - delaying when he jumps, delaying when he drops cloak and warps off, etc. He'll then proceed to continue burning away, but do so with an eye toward losing the maulus - warp to a planet near a gate and doubleback, etc. At that point, he burns back to that structure, which does not send up another warning ping until his first cycle of 2m has completed. If the maulus has not already doubled back a fair chunk of the way, the RF will complete before he can interrupt again. If, on the other hand, the maulus immediately entosises his own structure to repair the link damage, the interceptor will begin the process at another structure, which will ping after 2 minutes (again, the completion of his first cycle). This will come shortly after the maulus's first cycle completes, which means the maulus pilot will only have enough time in re-linking as it took the interceptor pilot to find a new target. The maulus pilot should not respond to the new ping. Finish the repairs, then respond. It will take less time to undo the linkage. An intelligent maulus pilot will be able to follow and counter the work of a single interceptor pretty consistently this way. Here's the problem: This hinges on that important concept: 'an intelligent maulus pilot'. The maulus pilot, being human, is probably an idiot. Most of us are. vOv Or, if you are only claiming sov where your people actually live, the Malus pilot goes back to whatever he wants to do and lets the guy living in that new system take care of it like he's supposed to.... View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents.

MASSADEATH MASS A DEATH Mordus Angels 69	Posted - 2015.03.09 21:33:44 - [851] - Quote Alavaria Fera wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: PotatoOverdose wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: Acuma wrote: Your objective is to spend 20-30 minutes in an active system to waste about 2-4 minutes of the defender and nothing else? Have fun with that.....I will enjoy the countless man hours wasted by these supposed "burn down all of nullsec trollceptors!" no, the attacking interceptor gets to disengage within 2m of getting caught for the basic math challenged, 2 minutes is a lot shorter time than 20-30 minutes For the basic Math challenged: Ceptor is on minute 38 of his sov lazor. Maulus warps in, damps, warps off. Ceptor never picks up sov lazor again. the fact that you are resorting to such a restricted, unrealistic vignette is betraying your desperation So basically... our 0.0 dream won't be ended by moa after we damp them a few times? No, this can't be... massadeath promised it would be over... you know the answer :) how many nights of the week do we attack you in your space ...every night how many nights of the week will we attack your sov giving the new mechanics....
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 613	Posted - 2015.03.09 21:34:30 - [852] - Quote Erasmus Grant wrote: Guess the one or two post I made suggesting that Battle-cruisers should be the smallest ship that can fit an E-Link is too vocal. Guess I will no longer give feedback anymore. realtalk, this is a travesty if ccp would actually take a stance on this, even one that they end up revising later, we might be able to redact several dozen pages of this thread alas, while the unknown percolates, we must post
EvilweaselFinance BUTTECORP INC Goonswarm Federation 663	Posted - 2015.03.09 21:34:39 - [853] - Quote Eli Apol wrote: I'm using the maximum for effect - we can do 27minutes instead and still have a 29:12 ratio of time wasted by the trollceptor pilot versus the defender. Point still stands. edit: And just done with replying to the ship-toaster not the thread in general :) so yes, we remain in a bore-off but without the thin advantage of a massive inbalance in favor of the defender, merely a moderate one what fun
sayasic Fog Industries The Methodical Alliance 6	Posted - 2015.03.09 21:35:35 - [854] - Quote Simple solution: T2 Module requires 150 powergrid. Interceptors and other frigates cannot fit it. Cruisers can but at a moderate price. Battleships and larger the powergrid is near negligable.
Eli Apol Pro Synergy 349	Posted - 2015.03.09 21:35:50 - [855] - Quote MASSADEATH wrote: you know the answer :) how many nights of the week do we attack you in your space ...every night how many nights of the week will we attack your sov giving the new mechanics.... The other nice thing is disrupting PvE in a system to lower the indices making it much easier to cap at a later date... Trollceptors won't work for actual pvp like that but an afk cloaky will :)
Alavaria Fera GoonWaffe 6585	Posted - 2015.03.09 21:37:00 - [856] - Quote EvilweaselFinance wrote: Eli Apol wrote: I'm using the maximum for effect - we can do 27minutes instead and still have a 29:12 ratio of time wasted by the trollceptor pilot versus the defender. Point still stands. edit: And just done with replying to the ship-toaster not the thread in general :) so yes, we remain in a bore-off but without the thin advantage of a massive inbalance in favor of the defender, merely a moderate one what fun Sounds perfect. Good thing we have trained interceptors or at least t1 ewar frigates. I guess this means we have to play defend the 0.0 dream ^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears. Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
Eli Apol Pro Synergy 349	Posted - 2015.03.09 21:37:18 - [857] - Quote EvilweaselFinance wrote: Eli Apol wrote: I'm using the maximum for effect - we can do 27minutes instead and still have a 29:12 ratio of time wasted by the trollceptor pilot versus the defender. Point still stands. edit: And just done with replying to the ship-toaster not the thread in general :) so yes, we remain in a bore-off but without the thin advantage of a massive inbalance in favor of the defender, merely a moderate one what fun If someone chooses to engage in trollceptor fleets - it's them that's forcing the boredom on each other - there's no rule that says you may only use a trollceptor to attempt a sov take over! It sounds like the kind of attritional grinding that some Sov holders enjoy participating in tbh.
Aiyshimin Fistful of Finns Triumvirate. 448	Posted - 2015.03.09 21:37:19 - [858] - Quote Promiscuous Female wrote: Aiyshimin wrote: Its not their own space they worry about, its their rented space. Currently hundreds of renters dock up when 5-man gang in T1 ships shows up 3 systems away, and stay docked until the gang leaves. ting. In sov 2.0, pvp is the reason to be in null. try getting dudes into their corps and awoxing the renters basically be better at eve I don't have to, Fozzie fixes sov this June Summer is coming
EvilweaselFinance BUTTECORP INC Goonswarm Federation 664	Posted - 2015.03.09 21:37:50 - [859] - Quote Eli Apol wrote: MASSADEATH wrote: you know the answer :) how many nights of the week do we attack you in your space ...every night how many nights of the week will we attack your sov giving the new mechanics.... The other nice thing is disrupting PvE in a system to lower the indices making it much easier to cap at a later date... Trollceptors won't work for actual pvp like that but an afk cloaky will :) moa tried that their fleets got smashed so often when they tried to bridge people in they stopped and tried to gank ratters with just the stealth bomber, and kept losing that to afktar drones automatically attacking it :laffo:
davet517 Caldari Provisions Caldari State 66	Posted - 2015.03.09 21:37:55 - [860] - Quote Jenn aSide wrote: If the change then happens and the big group then proceeds to do exactly what they warned they would, the dumb people who didn't heed the warning use it as another reason to hate the big group lol. If it weren't so sad, it would be funny. I'll ask again, who, exactly, do you think they are going to do it to who cant return the favor in spades? The other coalitions renters? I'm not sure that anyone other than those renters has a problem with that, and when you go down that road, be prepared to lose your own renters. They're threatening to grief some fantasy small sov holder that doesn't actually exist, and won't exist, unless and until the coalitions break up. Actually, the fantasy scenario for most unaligned folks is for the two coalitions to grief each other into the ground while they hammer away from NPC space, so, swing away. I kind of think that the same oligarchs who negotiated botlord will avoid that, though. They won't attack each other's soft renter underbellies and swaths of barely occupied systems. That'll be the privilege of others.

SilentAsTheGrave Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective 74	Posted - 2015.03.09 21:37:56 - [861] - Quote Erasmus Grant wrote: Guess the one or two post I made suggesting that Battle-cruisers should be the smallest ship that can fit an E-Link is too vocal. Guess I will no longer give feedback anymore. The problem with that is you start limiting the meta dramatically, which is bad. It is obvious in this thread and the previous that simply being active in a system you have sov in is enough of a counter. Requiring BC or larger just means outer lying regions continue to be afk risk free empires due to camping a couple choke points. Which again, is bad.
Arrendis GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 314	Posted - 2015.03.09 21:38:06 - [862] - Quote Eli Apol wrote: So what you're saying is that the maulus pilots only need to spend a fraction of the time sitting/orbitting a structure to undo this troll... And of course you assume that the maulus pilot isn't just a local bear that docked up and swapped ships quickly to defend his current system rather than chasing the interceptor to systems...that aren't his system? Genius. Oh, I don't think there's any doubt that the maulus pilots only need a fraction of the time sitting/orbitting a structure to undo the troll. Nor do I think there's any reason not to believe that the maulus pilot isn't a local nullbear who's swapped over to a defensive ship. In doing so, though, he's eating into his 'making money' time. And ostensibly, the reason he makes his money that way is that's what he enjoys doing. The troll pilot, on the other hand, enjoys trolling. So one side is getting what they want (provoking a reaction), while the other side is not (interrupting their planned activities to deal with the troll). Ultimately, it's a question of which side (trolls vs residents) gets tired of doing it first. And if the history of online social interaction has shown us anything - completely setting aside 'Goons' or 'Eve' or even online gaming and going right back to 40+ years of usenet etc - is that trolls will keep on trolling just as long as they can get a reaction. Even showing up to put a stop to their activities only yields 'umad bro? lololol'. The only response that doesn't feed the troll, as it were, is to ignore them - which in this case, means they RF your stuff. Utlimately, the troll can't lose, if all he wants to do is troll. Can the defenders keep their space intact? Sure. But the troll can't lose. Not even if he gets stopped. Not even if he gets blown up. Because he's trolling, and you reacted. And that's what gets him off - feeling like he's made you play his game, not yours.
PotatoOverdose Royal Black Watch Highlanders DARKNESS. 2638	Posted - 2015.03.09 21:38:41 - [863] - Quote EvilweaselFinance wrote: Eli Apol wrote: I'm using the maximum for effect - we can do 27minutes instead and still have a 29:12 ratio of time wasted by the trollceptor pilot versus the defender. Point still stands. edit: And just done with replying to the ship-toaster not the thread in general :) so yes, we remain in a bore-off but without the thin advantage of a massive inbalance in favor of the defender, merely a moderate one what fun Defender advantage is a key contributor to overall stagnation in sov. Reducing that is a good thing.
EvilweaselFinance BUTTECORP INC Goonswarm Federation 664	Posted - 2015.03.09 21:38:48 - [864] - Quote Eli Apol wrote: If someone chooses to engage in trollceptor fleets - it's them that's forcing the boredom on each other - there's no rule that says you may only use a trollceptor to attempt a sov take over! It sounds like the kind of attritional grinding that some Sov holders enjoy participating in tbh. there's no rule that says you can't fit mining lasers to a titan either, but nobody does because it doesn't make a lick of sense to do it except as a joke
Ranger 1 Ranger Corp Vae. Victis. 6168	Posted - 2015.03.09 21:39:38 - [865] - Quote EvilweaselFinance wrote: Eli Apol wrote: I'm using the maximum for effect - we can do 27minutes instead and still have a 29:12 ratio of time wasted by the trollceptor pilot versus the defender. Point still stands. edit: And just done with replying to the ship-toaster not the thread in general :) so yes, we remain in a bore-off but without the thin advantage of a massive inbalance in favor of the defender, merely a moderate one what fun The only real disadvantage is being inflicted on sov holders with more systems than they can cover... everybody else is just fine., thanks. View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents.
Alavaria Fera GoonWaffe 6585	Posted - 2015.03.09 21:39:43 - [866] - Quote davet517 wrote: Jenn aSide wrote: If the change then happens and the big group then proceeds to do exactly what they warned they would, the dumb people who didn't heed the warning use it as another reason to hate the big group lol. If it weren't so sad, it would be funny. I'll ask again, who, exactly, do you think they are going to do it to who cant return the favor in spades? The other coalitions renters? I'm not sure that anyone other than those renters has a problem with that, and when you go down that road, be prepared to lose your own renters. They're threatening to grief some fantasy small sov holder that doesn't actually exist, and won't exist, unless and until the coalitions break up. Actually, the fantasy scenario for most unaligned folks is for the two coalitions to grief each other into the ground while they hammer away from NPC space, so, swing away. I kind of think that the same oligarchs who negotiated botlord will avoid that, though. They won't attack each other's soft renter underbellies and swaths of barely occupied systems. That'll be the privilege of others. No way, you mean even more not-blue-but-we-have-agreements is what will come out of this? But I thought it was supposed to shake up null Then... who will end our 0.0 nightmare?!? ^^ 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 314	Posted - 2015.03.09 21:39:44 - [867] - Quote EvilweaselFinance wrote: MASSADEATH wrote: You are not understanding the goons fear.... they know what will happen...just like the way we hunt thier ratters.... so poorly that deklein remains the most heavily ratted region in the game by far, as admitted by noted goon propagandist gevlon goblin? With 20% less pvp activity than before Phoebe, even.
Alavaria Fera GoonWaffe 6585	Posted - 2015.03.09 21:41:10 - [868] - Quote Arrendis wrote: Eli Apol wrote: So what you're saying is that the maulus pilots only need to spend a fraction of the time sitting/orbitting a structure to undo this troll... And of course you assume that the maulus pilot isn't just a local bear that docked up and swapped ships quickly to defend his current system rather than chasing the interceptor to systems...that aren't his system? Genius. Oh, I don't think there's any doubt that the maulus pilots only need a fraction of the time sitting/orbitting a structure to undo the troll. Nor do I think there's any reason not to believe that the maulus pilot isn't a local nullbear who's swapped over to a defensive ship. In doing so, though, he's eating into his 'making money' time. And ostensibly, the reason he makes his money that way is that's what he enjoys doing. The troll pilot, on the other hand, enjoys trolling. So one side is getting what they want (provoking a reaction), while the other side is not (interrupting their planned activities to deal with the troll). Ultimately, it's a question of which side (trolls vs residents) gets tired of doing it first. And if the history of online social interaction has shown us anything - completely setting aside 'Goons' or 'Eve' or even online gaming and going right back to 40+ years of usenet etc - is that trolls will keep on trolling just as long as they can get a reaction. Even showing up to put a stop to their activities only yields 'umad bro? lololol'. The only response that doesn't feed the troll, as it were, is to ignore them - which in this case, means they RF your stuff. Utlimately, the troll can't lose, if all he wants to do is troll. Can the defenders keep their space intact? Sure. But the troll can't lose. Not even if he gets stopped. Not even if he gets blown up. Because he's trolling, and you reacted. And that's what gets him off - feeling like he's made you play his game, not yours. Hmmm I see so even if moa can't ever win against us, if they have no sov anyway they can't ever lose but we will lose eventually unless of course we are alive when eve dies... but otherwise they can just predict that our 0.0 dream will end eventually... ^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears. Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
Eli Apol Pro Synergy 349	Posted - 2015.03.09 21:41:22 - [869] - Quote EvilweaselFinance wrote: Eli Apol wrote: If someone chooses to engage in trollceptor fleets - it's them that's forcing the boredom on each other - there's no rule that says you may only use a trollceptor to attempt a sov take over! It sounds like the kind of attritional grinding that some Sov holders enjoy participating in tbh. there's no rule that says you can't fit mining lasers to a titan either, but nobody does because it doesn't make a lick of sense to do it except as a joke Sure, you guys can spend other people's primetimes just trolling them - idk maybe people that actually want to take sov will turn up with fleets or put a cyno on their ceptors.
Killian Cormac Cormac Distribution 5	Posted - 2015.03.09 21:41:29 - [870] - Quote Ranafal wrote: OMFG, 40 pages and still no solution for trollceptor? Incorrect.

Alavaria Fera GoonWaffe 6585	Posted - 2015.03.09 21:42:19 - [871] - Quote Eli Apol wrote: EvilweaselFinance wrote: Eli Apol wrote: If someone chooses to engage in trollceptor fleets - it's them that's forcing the boredom on each other - there's no rule that says you may only use a trollceptor to attempt a sov take over! It sounds like the kind of attritional grinding that some Sov holders enjoy participating in tbh. there's no rule that says you can't fit mining lasers to a titan either, but nobody does because it doesn't make a lick of sense to do it except as a joke Sure, you guys can spend other people's primetimes just trolling them - idk maybe people that actually want to take sov will turn up with fleets or put a cyno on their ceptors. don't worry we have enough people to troll and put up some fleets ^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears. Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
EvilweaselFinance BUTTECORP INC Goonswarm Federation 664	Posted - 2015.03.09 21:42:23 - [872] - Quote davet517 wrote: I'll ask again, who, exactly, do you think they are going to do it to who cant return the favor in spades? . the optimistic fools who think that the change means they can now have sov blocs will continue to exist as the only way to prevent getting blasted out of nullsec by a bored bloc in a week
MASSADEATH MASS A DEATH Mordus Angels 69	Posted - 2015.03.09 21:42:26 - [873] - Quote Promiscuous Female wrote: Eli Apol wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: some people need to have things repeated to them in order to understand them some more than others i guess One last bite. 40 minute capture time. 10 minute to undo that capture. How many warps does my maulus need to do to end up 30 minutes behind your ceptor? Fin. 40 minute cap time is extremely rare, only 2 systems in deklein even fit that territory and lol for the rest of the universe here is the secret wisdom even if the attacker manages to accomplish nothing, he still wins, and at no time did he ever risk anything perhaps the logistical might of the mighty goons should improve more of these ratting systems then.so they can be better defended with higher indices :)
EvilweaselFinance BUTTECORP INC Goonswarm Federation 664	Posted - 2015.03.09 21:43:31 - [874] - Quote Eli Apol wrote: Sure, you guys can spend other people's primetimes just trolling them - idk maybe people that actually want to take sov will turn up with fleets or put a cyno on their ceptors. nobody will fight us, just ask massadeath who while vigoriously masturbating at the possibility of being relevant has let slip he will never actually take a fight because he'd lose
Alavaria Fera GoonWaffe 6585	Posted - 2015.03.09 21:43:52 - [875] - Quote EvilweaselFinance wrote: davet517 wrote: I'll ask again, who, exactly, do you think they are going to do it to who cant return the favor in spades? . the optimistic fools who think that the change means they can now have sov blocs will continue to exist as the only way to prevent getting blasted out of nullsec by a bored bloc in a week But can they at least blast the blocs out of nullsec as well? It's meaningless if random npc nullsec dwellers can't just destroy everyone's 0.0 fantasy you know ^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears. Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 613	Posted - 2015.03.09 21:44:21 - [876] - Quote MASSADEATH wrote: perhaps the logistical might of the mighty goons should improve more of these ratting systems then.so they can be better defended with higher indices :) cta red pen mining op
Alavaria Fera GoonWaffe 6585	Posted - 2015.03.09 21:44:49 - [877] - Quote EvilweaselFinance wrote: Eli Apol wrote: Sure, you guys can spend other people's primetimes just trolling them - idk maybe people that actually want to take sov will turn up with fleets or put a cyno on their ceptors. nobody will fight us, just ask massadeath who while vigoriously masturbating at the possibility of being relevant has let slip he will never actually take a fight because he'd lose he can't lose as moa has no sov He wouldn't be "prepping" his "sov laser" if he didn't intend to use it all over our "command nodes" ^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears. Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
KIller Wabbit The Scope Gallente Federation 912	Posted - 2015.03.09 21:45:08 - [878] - Quote Andrea Keuvo wrote: Right now these systems are typically rented out and are protected by the sheer HP grind and the knowledge that they will be defended by the landlord. Which part of "Death to Rentals" did you miss? What has been proposed is a great place to embark on the journey. Ship it, Fozzie.
PotatoOverdose Royal Black Watch Highlanders DARKNESS. 2638	Posted - 2015.03.09 21:45:54 - [879] - Quote Ranger 1 wrote: The only real disadvantage is being inflicted on sov holders with more systems than they can cover... everybody else is just fine., thanks. Sorting this thread by alliance....http://eve-search.com/stats/thread/411402-1 Goonswarm Federation 285 (33,3%) The next highest alliance is: Mordus Angels 53 (6,2%) Sorting by individual poster: Promiscuous Female 128 (15,0%) The next highest poster: EvilweaselFinance 63 (7,4%) Good stuff.
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 613	Posted - 2015.03.09 21:45:55 - [880] - Quote massadeath what do you hate more, goons or red killboards

Alavaria Fera GoonWaffe 6585	Posted - 2015.03.09 21:46:20 - [881] - Quote KIller Wabbit wrote: What has been proposed is a great place to embark on the journey. Ship it, Fozzie. Let's do this thing. ^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears. Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 613	Posted - 2015.03.09 21:46:42 - [882] - Quote be honest now
EvilweaselFinance BUTTECORP INC Goonswarm Federation 670	Posted - 2015.03.09 21:48:07 - [883] - Quote KIller Wabbit wrote: Andrea Keuvo wrote: Right now these systems are typically rented out and are protected by the sheer HP grind and the knowledge that they will be defended by the landlord. Which part of "Death to Rentals" did you miss? What has been proposed is a great place to embark on the journey. Ship it, Fozzie. nobody's really discussed the effect of this on renters, mostly because its effect on renters isn't real dependent on the link stats so its irrelevant to this thread
Alavaria Fera GoonWaffe 6586	Posted - 2015.03.09 21:48:32 - [884] - Quote MASSADEATH wrote: EvilweaselFinance wrote: MASSADEATH wrote: You are not understanding the goons fear.... they know what will happen...just like the way we hunt thier ratters.... so poorly that deklein remains the most heavily ratted region in the game by far, as admitted by noted goon propagandist gevlon goblin? hey, we are one of the highest paid "mercs" in eve currently...and all we have to do is kill CFC/goons..which was already our natural disposition. and you are facing a group that cant be bought off..or weaseled in any other way like the goons usually do. do you see anyone else living beside you? no does it get better than that...... heck yes killing CFC and GOONS...and having the ability to dismantle their SOV you had better stock up on IHUBS and TCUs..cause a kill is a kill...and we are gonna take as many out as we can AWWWW YEAAHHH It's great to see you getting fired up to do this thing, there's hope for a better tomorrow!! ^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears. Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 613	Posted - 2015.03.09 21:49:03 - [885] - Quote PotatoOverdose wrote: Ranger 1 wrote: The only real disadvantage is being inflicted on sov holders with more systems than they can cover... everybody else is just fine., thanks. Sorting this thread by alliance.... http://eve-search.com/stats/thread/411402-1 Goonswarm Federation 285 (33,3%) The next highest alliance is: Mordus Angels 53 (6,2%) Sorting by individual poster: Promiscuous Female 128 (15,0%) The next highest poster: EvilweaselFinance 63 (7,4%) Good stuff. in a startling discovery it is found that a forum-based community likes to post on forums
Tycho VI Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective 8	Posted - 2015.03.09 21:49:30 - [886] - Quote SilentAsTheGrave wrote: Erasmus Grant wrote: Guess the one or two post I made suggesting that Battle-cruisers should be the smallest ship that can fit an E-Link is too vocal. Guess I will no longer give feedback anymore. The problem with that is you start limiting the meta dramatically, which is bad. It is obvious in this thread and the previous that simply being active in a system you have sov in is enough of a counter. Requiring BC or larger just means outer lying regions continue to be afk risk free empires due to camping a couple choke points. Which again, is bad. Should it really not be this way? Is it not realistic to have the farthest backwater regions have to be expanded out to by en entity? or to have a planned, extensive operation for a smaller organization to take the farthest of systems and hold it without a connection? It will be this way regardless of whether or not an intercepter can get there and take it in 5 mins of travel from high sec due to the distance to resupply the market there. Is it really so non sensible to have the meta support larger ships? This is how it is in real life. Iranian gunboats will not be able to take over a country, however a couple airfraft carriers with destroyer support.... I should be able to throw a few rocks(interceptor battalion) at your giant compound and the entire thing blow up like a nuke? We should keep to common sense.
MASSADEATH MASS A DEATH Mordus Angels 70	Posted - 2015.03.09 21:49:47 - [887] - Quote Eli Apol wrote: MASSADEATH wrote: you know the answer :) how many nights of the week do we attack you in your space ...every night how many nights of the week will we attack your sov giving the new mechanics.... The other nice thing is disrupting PvE in a system to lower the indices making it much easier to cap at a later date... Trollceptors won't work for actual pvp like that but an afk cloaky will :) Yes!!! and guess what.... we already have the whole cloaky alt thing in place !!!! :)
Ranger 1 Ranger Corp Vae. Victis. 6169	Posted - 2015.03.09 21:50:32 - [888] - Quote Alavaria Fera wrote: davet517 wrote: Jenn aSide wrote: If the change then happens and the big group then proceeds to do exactly what they warned they would, the dumb people who didn't heed the warning use it as another reason to hate the big group lol. If it weren't so sad, it would be funny. I'll ask again, who, exactly, do you think they are going to do it to who cant return the favor in spades? The other coalitions renters? I'm not sure that anyone other than those renters has a problem with that, and when you go down that road, be prepared to lose your own renters. They're threatening to grief some fantasy small sov holder that doesn't actually exist, and won't exist, unless and until the coalitions break up. Actually, the fantasy scenario for most unaligned folks is for the two coalitions to grief each other into the ground while they hammer away from NPC space, so, swing away. I kind of think that the same oligarchs who negotiated botlord will avoid that, though. They won't attack each other's soft renter underbellies and swaths of barely occupied systems. That'll be the privilege of others. No way, you mean even more not-blue-but-we-have-agreements is what will come out of this? But I thought it was supposed to shake up null Then... who will end our 0.0 nightmare?!? Apparently your agreements won't actually be relevant to the rest of the eve player base. View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents.
Arrendis GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 314	Posted - 2015.03.09 21:50:39 - [889] - Quote Alavaria Fera wrote: Hmmm I see so even if moa can't ever win against us, if they have no sov anyway they can't ever lose but we will lose eventually unless of course we are alive when eve dies... but otherwise they can just predict that our 0.0 dream will end eventually... Functionally, yes. Eventually, though, you have to take into account the cultural bias toward masochism in the CFC (and goons in particular), not to mention the wonderful game of counter-trolling, as typified by most of the interaction in both directions on these forums.
EvilweaselFinance BUTTECORP INC Goonswarm Federation 670	Posted - 2015.03.09 21:50:49 - [890] - Quote MASSADEATH wrote: hey, we are one of the highest paid "mercs" in eve currently...and all we have to do is kill CFC/goons..which was already our natural disposition. and you are facing a group that cant be bought off..or weaseled in any other way like the goons usually do. do you see anyone else living beside you? no well yes, you can't be bought off because we did it already and found the trivial price wasn't worth it because you were useless and we were better off with you as enemies we used to have black fleegion living next to us as well but :laffo: i do admire your ability to deal with talking to gevlon for the free money though, most people haven't been able to resist laughing in his face long enough to keep collecting the money well, besides TEST. i guess you're like TEST.

Erasmus Grant EVE University Ivy League 20	Posted - 2015.03.09 21:51:10 - [891] - Quote SilentAsTheGrave wrote: Erasmus Grant wrote: Guess the one or two post I made suggesting that Battle-cruisers should be the smallest ship that can fit an E-Link is too vocal. Guess I will no longer give feedback anymore. The problem with that is you start limiting the meta dramatically, which is bad. It is obvious in this thread and the previous that simply being active in a system you have sov in is enough of a counter. Requiring BC or larger just means outer lying regions continue to be afk risk free empires due to camping a couple choke points. Which again, is bad. Nothing is afk risk with titan bridges and wormholes. What is the point getting a bunch of frigates past these choke points if it is the only thing you can get past these points. There are mechanics in the game already to get past these chokepoints. Problem with Null Sec is that most of it is not worth control in the first place. If it was N3 would be alot smaller.
EvilweaselFinance BUTTECORP INC Goonswarm Federation 670	Posted - 2015.03.09 21:51:35 - [892] - Quote MASSADEATH wrote: Yes!!! and guess what.... we already have the whole cloaky alt thing in place !!!! :) odd, our ratting indexes are still at V guess the cloaky alt thing doesn't work too well :v:
Alavaria Fera GoonWaffe 6586	Posted - 2015.03.09 21:52:22 - [893] - Quote EvilweaselFinance wrote: MASSADEATH wrote: hey, we are one of the highest paid "mercs" in eve currently...and all we have to do is kill CFC/goons..which was already our natural disposition. and you are facing a group that cant be bought off..or weaseled in any other way like the goons usually do. do you see anyone else living beside you? no well yes, you can't be bought off because we did it already and found the trivial price wasn't worth it because you were useless and we were better off with you as enemies we used to have black fleegion living next to us as well but :laffo: i do admire your ability to deal with talking to gevlon for the free money though, most people haven't been able to resist laughing in his face long enough to keep collecting the money well, besides TEST. i guess you're like TEST. TEST are the heroes we deserve. Maybe they will also return to end our 0.0 dream? ^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears. Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
Acuma Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic 5	Posted - 2015.03.09 21:52:37 - [894] - Quote Promiscuous Female wrote: Acuma wrote: Your objective is to spend 20-30 minutes in an active system to waste about 2-4 minutes of the defender and nothing else? Have fun with that.....I will enjoy the countless man hours wasted by these supposed "burn down all of nullsec trollceptors!" no, the attacking interceptor gets to disengage within 2m of getting caught for the basic math challenged, 2 minutes is a lot shorter time than 20-30 minutes Uh.....math huh. So what happens when you sit there for 30 minutes with you link active only to have some noob frigate come in and halt your progress? You magically get that time back?
ISD Ezwal ISD Community Communications Liaisons 4007	Posted - 2015.03.09 21:52:57 - [895] - Quote I have removed some rule breaking posts and those quoting them. As always I let some edge cases stay. Please people, keep it on topic and above all civil! The Rules: 3. Ranting is prohibited. A rant is a post that is often filled with angry and counter productive comments. A free exchange of ideas is essential to building a strong sense of community and is helpful in development of the game and community. Rants are disruptive, and incite flaming and trolling. Please post your thoughts in a concise and clear manner while avoiding going off on rambling tangents. 4. Personal attacks are prohibited. Commonly known as flaming, personal attacks are posts that are designed to personally berate or insult another forum user. Posts of this nature are not beneficial to the community spirit that CCP promote and as such they will not be tolerated. ISD Ezwal Vice Admiral Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs) Interstellar Services Department
MASSADEATH MASS A DEATH Mordus Angels 70	Posted - 2015.03.09 21:53:01 - [896] - Quote EvilweaselFinance wrote: Eli Apol wrote: MASSADEATH wrote: you know the answer :) how many nights of the week do we attack you in your space ...every night how many nights of the week will we attack your sov giving the new mechanics.... The other nice thing is disrupting PvE in a system to lower the indices making it much easier to cap at a later date... Trollceptors won't work for actual pvp like that but an afk cloaky will :) moa tried that their fleets got smashed so often when they tried to bridge people in they stopped and tried to gank ratters with just the stealth bomber, and kept losing that to afktar drones automatically attacking it :laffo: yeah we are failing so hard at killing goons, we are the top killers of them in all of eve on a regular basis who was it last week that lost not 1 but 2 carriers to a INTERCEPTOR FLEET !!!!! ... yep CFC/goons
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 613	Posted - 2015.03.09 21:53:21 - [897] - Quote EvilweaselFinance wrote: MASSADEATH wrote: Yes!!! and guess what.... we already have the whole cloaky alt thing in place !!!! :) odd, our ratting indexes are still at V guess the cloaky alt thing doesn't work too well :v: they'd have to leave the ya0 beacon to affect any other systems
SilentAsTheGrave Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective 75	Posted - 2015.03.09 21:53:33 - [898] - Quote PotatoOverdose wrote: Ranger 1 wrote: The only real disadvantage is being inflicted on sov holders with more systems than they can cover... everybody else is just fine., thanks. Sorting this thread by alliance.... http://eve-search.com/stats/thread/411402-1 Goonswarm Federation 285 (33,3%) The next highest alliance is: Mordus Angels 53 (6,2%) Sorting by individual poster: Promiscuous Female 128 (15,0%) The next highest poster: EvilweaselFinance 63 (7,4%) Good stuff. TIL the interceptor is goons worst nightmare.
EvilweaselFinance BUTTECORP INC Goonswarm Federation 670	Posted - 2015.03.09 21:53:44 - [899] - Quote Acuma wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: Acuma wrote: Your objective is to spend 20-30 minutes in an active system to waste about 2-4 minutes of the defender and nothing else? Have fun with that.....I will enjoy the countless man hours wasted by these supposed "burn down all of nullsec trollceptors!" no, the attacking interceptor gets to disengage within 2m of getting caught for the basic math challenged, 2 minutes is a lot shorter time than 20-30 minutes Uh.....math huh. So what happens when you sit there for 30 minutes with you link active only to have some noob frigate come in and halt your progress? You magically get that time back? you placed the system into reinforced, because 29.5m is the maximum it takes for anything but the exceedingly rare mining system
Ranger 1 Ranger Corp Vae. Victis. 6169	Posted - 2015.03.09 21:53:50 - [900] - Quote EvilweaselFinance wrote: davet517 wrote: I'll ask again, who, exactly, do you think they are going to do it to who cant return the favor in spades? . the optimistic fools who think that the change means they can now have sov blocs will continue to exist as the only way to prevent getting blasted out of nullsec by a bored bloc in a week C'mon now, this is EVE. You know full well that most of the EVE player base is more interested in tearing bloody bits off of your Sov holdings than they ever will be holding Sov of their own. View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents.

John McCreedy Eve Defence Force The Kadeshi 177	Posted - 2015.03.09 21:54:09 - [901] - Quote davet517 wrote: [quote=John McCreedy] You get a notice if your sov's being attacked. The whole point of this is to live in the systems that you claim. Don't live there, don't claim it. If you do live there, you don't need to camp because of one cloaky neut. If the alarms go off, respond. Lots of red-herrings flying around here, but, nobody wants to address the elephant in the room. It's renters, mostly. Renters whose "defense" is to safe up when neuts enter system. Not to mention, shall we say, "auto-renters" that are programmed to do so. Ever lead a roaming gang through the south only to encounter system after system with one nullified tengu that warps to a POS when you enter? Mr. Dave has. It's pretty sad. Systems that are actually occupied and used by people who can fight will have no issue here. This PR blitz is, at least to a large degree, to try to protect absentee landlord income streams. The issues people living in sov are concerned with have nothing to do with living there. Give us a reason to want to live somewhere (i.e. income) and we'll live there. Most are broadly in favour of the proposal, it's just the issue of balance. No game mechanic should tip the balance between Attacker and Defender in to eithers corner yet introducing a module used for hacking sov that can be fitted to a ship with the lowest sig radius and fastest speed, can warp through bubbles and target at comparatively long range tips that balance very firmly in favour of the attacker. That needs to change because the outcome of contesting Sov should come down to the players involved, not the game mechanics at work.
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 613	Posted - 2015.03.09 21:54:19 - [902] - Quote Acuma wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: Acuma wrote: Your objective is to spend 20-30 minutes in an active system to waste about 2-4 minutes of the defender and nothing else? Have fun with that.....I will enjoy the countless man hours wasted by these supposed "burn down all of nullsec trollceptors!" no, the attacking interceptor gets to disengage within 2m of getting caught for the basic math challenged, 2 minutes is a lot shorter time than 20-30 minutes Uh.....math huh. So what happens when you sit there for 30 minutes with you link active only to have some noob frigate come in and halt your progress? You magically get that time back? 30m is enough to cap the average deklein point everywhere else is much, much, much faster
Alavaria Fera GoonWaffe 6587	Posted - 2015.03.09 21:54:55 - [903] - Quote EvilweaselFinance wrote: MASSADEATH wrote: hey, we are one of the highest paid "mercs" in eve currently...and all we have to do is kill CFC/goons..which was already our natural disposition. and you are facing a group that cant be bought off..or weaseled in any other way like the goons usually do. do you see anyone else living beside you? no well yes, you can't be bought off because we did it already and found the trivial price wasn't worth it because you were useless and we were better off with you as enemies we used to have black fleegion living next to us as well but :laffo: i do admire your ability to deal with talking to gevlon for the free money though, most people haven't been able to resist laughing in his face long enough to keep collecting the money well, besides TEST. i guess you're like TEST. does this mean that one day, moa might stop because it isn't worth the effort for the payment... if so , who will end our 0.0 dream? someone with even more isk... oh no it will be NORTHERNASSOCIATES. ^^ 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 314	Posted - 2015.03.09 21:55:05 - [904] - Quote MASSADEATH wrote: who was it last week that lost not 1 but 2 carriers to a INTERCEPTOR FLEET !!!!! ... yep CFC/goons Was it Tib? I hope it was Tib. He needs to be freed from his shackles of a dozen carrier ratters.
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 616	Posted - 2015.03.09 21:55:24 - [905] - Quote John McCreedy wrote: davet517 wrote: You get a notice if your sov's being attacked. The whole point of this is to live in the systems that you claim. Don't live there, don't claim it. If you do live there, you don't need to camp because of one cloaky neut. If the alarms go off, respond. Lots of red-herrings flying around here, but, nobody wants to address the elephant in the room. It's renters, mostly. Renters whose "defense" is to safe up when neuts enter system. Not to mention, shall we say, "auto-renters" that are programmed to do so. Ever lead a roaming gang through the south only to encounter system after system with one nullified tengu that warps to a POS when you enter? Mr. Dave has. It's pretty sad. Systems that are actually occupied and used by people who can fight will have no issue here. This PR blitz is, at least to a large degree, to try to protect absentee landlord income streams. The issues people living in sov are concerned with have nothing to do with living there. Give us a reason to want to live somewhere (i.e. income) and we'll live there. Most are broadly in favour of the proposal, it's just the issue of balance. No game mechanic should tip the balance between Attacker and Defender in to eithers corner yet introducing a module used for hacking sov that can be fitted to a ship with the lowest sig radius and fastest speed, can warp through bubbles and target at comparatively long range tips that balance very firmly in favour of the attacker. That needs to change because the outcome of contesting Sov should come down to the players involved, not the game mechanics at work. never let it be said that i refuse to agree with a poster because of their alliance affiliations because i agree with this post quite a lot
SilentAsTheGrave Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective 75	Posted - 2015.03.09 21:57:33 - [906] - Quote Tycho VI wrote: SilentAsTheGrave wrote: Erasmus Grant wrote: Guess the one or two post I made suggesting that Battle-cruisers should be the smallest ship that can fit an E-Link is too vocal. Guess I will no longer give feedback anymore. The problem with that is you start limiting the meta dramatically, which is bad. It is obvious in this thread and the previous that simply being active in a system you have sov in is enough of a counter. Requiring BC or larger just means outer lying regions continue to be afk risk free empires due to camping a couple choke points. Which again, is bad. Should it really not be this way? Is it not realistic to have the farthest backwater regions have to be expanded out to by en entity? or to have a planned, extensive operation for a smaller organization to take the farthest of systems and hold it without a connection? It will be this way regardless of whether or not an intercepter can get there and take it in 5 mins of travel from high sec due to the distance to resupply the market there. Is it really so non sensible to have the meta support larger ships? This is how it is in real life. Iranian gunboats will not be able to take over a country, however a couple airfraft carriers with destroyer support.... I should be able to throw a few rocks(interceptor battalion) at your giant compound and the entire thing blow up like a nuke? We should keep to common sense. If I can't be bothered to protect it - YES! Those Iranian gun boats are not going up against unmanned aircraft carriers and destroyers, but thanks for proving my point.
SilentAsTheGrave Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective 75	Posted - 2015.03.09 21:58:52 - [907] - Quote Arrendis wrote: MASSADEATH wrote: who was it last week that lost not 1 but 2 carriers to a INTERCEPTOR FLEET !!!!! ... yep CFC/goons Was it Tib? I hope it was Tib. He needs to be freed from his shackles of a dozen carrier ratters. Cut one carrier off, two more appear!
MASSADEATH MASS A DEATH Mordus Angels 70	Posted - 2015.03.09 21:58:57 - [908] - Quote Alavaria Fera wrote: EvilweaselFinance wrote: Eli Apol wrote: Sure, you guys can spend other people's primetimes just trolling them - idk maybe people that actually want to take sov will turn up with fleets or put a cyno on their ceptors. nobody will fight us, just ask massadeath who while vigoriously masturbating at the possibility of being relevant has let slip he will never actually take a fight because he'd lose he can't lose as moa has no sov He wouldn't be "prepping" his "sov laser" if he didn't intend to use it all over our "command nodes" HEY HEY HEY... we have some VERY important POCOS that are VERY dear to us, that you constantly come and and destroy.... that hurts when you do that..... and dont even talk about the POS's you blow up..... with all our moon goo operations.... ohh wait a sec.... we dont hold any moon goo... ok..but whatever ..we really like those POS's
Tycho VI Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective 8	Posted - 2015.03.09 22:00:06 - [909] - Quote I mean....if the meta of the game shifts to the point of smaller ships like frigates and destroyers having more of an effect then a doctrine fleets of 100k ehp+ that are slow moving and expensive in a new sov system where systems can change hands so easily to small, fast groups of people: Then you will find that no one will want to fly expensive things anymore. Not at the risk of them being blown up in battle, but at something far worse....The worry that you will have to go away from eve, go on vacation, or whatever, for 1 or 2 weeks...and coming back to all your stuff being deadzoned and gone forever, which could actually be a very common thing if the changes aren't done right...not just one ship like a carrier, but every single thing you own not just in that station, but that entire region. I already plan on moving capital assets to lowsec when the sov changes roll out for a few months just to see how the map moves, and I am sure that I am not the only one thinking about doing this. Mostly because I have RL stuff I will be busy with when June rolls around...but yeah
EvilweaselFinance BUTTECORP INC Goonswarm Federation 673	Posted - 2015.03.09 22:00:14 - [910] - Quote Ranger 1 wrote: EvilweaselFinance wrote: davet517 wrote: I'll ask again, who, exactly, do you think they are going to do it to who cant return the favor in spades? . the optimistic fools who think that the change means they can now have sov blocs will continue to exist as the only way to prevent getting blasted out of nullsec by a bored bloc in a week C'mon now, this is EVE. You know full well that most of the EVE player base is more interested in tearing bloody bits off of your Sov holdings than they ever will be holding Sov of their own. yeah maybe we abandon some shittier areas, but people seem to think we'll let them have those they are in for a rude surprise because we'll have quite the bored supercarrier fleet

Acuma Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic 5	Posted - 2015.03.09 22:00:58 - [911] - Quote EvilweaselFinance wrote: Acuma wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: Acuma wrote: Your objective is to spend 20-30 minutes in an active system to waste about 2-4 minutes of the defender and nothing else? Have fun with that.....I will enjoy the countless man hours wasted by these supposed "burn down all of nullsec trollceptors!" no, the attacking interceptor gets to disengage within 2m of getting caught for the basic math challenged, 2 minutes is a lot shorter time than 20-30 minutes Uh.....math huh. So what happens when you sit there for 30 minutes with you link active only to have some noob frigate come in and halt your progress? You magically get that time back? you placed the system into reinforced, because 29.5m is the maximum it takes for anything but the exceedingly rare mining system Really? And as has been discussed in other threads, that will probably be adjusted. Don't be dense. A heavily occupied system will probably end up near the top, and the defending force is going to know how much time they have......which is alot more than you. 15, 20, 30.....doesn't matter. Takes only 2 minutes of link activation to cancel you out. Congratulations.....you have chosen to waste hours accomplishing taking a few minutes of a defenders time......have fun with that.
EvilweaselFinance BUTTECORP INC Goonswarm Federation 673	Posted - 2015.03.09 22:01:01 - [912] - Quote MASSADEATH wrote: and dont even talk about the POS's you blow up..... with all our moon goo operations.... ohh wait a sec.... we dont hold any moon goo... you don't anymore, since we took it all away :laffo:
Ranger 1 Ranger Corp Vae. Victis. 6169	Posted - 2015.03.09 22:01:21 - [913] - Quote EvilweaselFinance wrote: Ranger 1 wrote: EvilweaselFinance wrote: davet517 wrote: I'll ask again, who, exactly, do you think they are going to do it to who cant return the favor in spades? . the optimistic fools who think that the change means they can now have sov blocs will continue to exist as the only way to prevent getting blasted out of nullsec by a bored bloc in a week C'mon now, this is EVE. You know full well that most of the EVE player base is more interested in tearing bloody bits off of your Sov holdings than they ever will be holding Sov of their own. yeah maybe we abandon some shittier areas, but people seem to think we'll let them have those they are in for a rude surprise because we'll have quite the bored supercarrier fleet I don't think anyone really cares about the crappier area's you're forced to abandon. View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents.
EvilweaselFinance BUTTECORP INC Goonswarm Federation 673	Posted - 2015.03.09 22:02:39 - [914] - Quote Acuma wrote: Really? And as has been discussed in other threads, that will probably be adjusted. Don't be dense. A heavily occupied system will probably end up near the top, and the defending force is going to know how much time they have......which is alot more than you. 15, 20, 30.....doesn't matter. Takes only 2 minutes of link activation to cancel you out. Congratulations.....you have chosen to waste hours accomplishing taking a few minutes of a defenders time......have fun with that. i've seen many people agree it should be adjusted, but none with a CCP tag and two links being activated PAUSES, not resets, the attackers timer
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 616	Posted - 2015.03.09 22:03:13 - [915] - Quote Acuma wrote: Really? And as has been discussed in other threads, that will probably be adjusted. Don't be dense. A heavily occupied system will probably end up near the top, and the defending force is going to know how much time they have......which is alot more than you. 15, 20, 30.....doesn't matter. Takes only 2 minutes of link activation to cancel you out. Congratulations.....you have chosen to waste hours accomplishing taking a few minutes of a defenders time......have fun with that. disengage and move to next target like seriously i need my clipboard back to post pictures of cats in jabber, you are killing me ehre
Acuma Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic 5	Posted - 2015.03.09 22:04:15 - [916] - Quote EvilweaselFinance wrote: Acuma wrote: Really? And as has been discussed in other threads, that will probably be adjusted. Don't be dense. A heavily occupied system will probably end up near the top, and the defending force is going to know how much time they have......which is alot more than you. 15, 20, 30.....doesn't matter. Takes only 2 minutes of link activation to cancel you out. Congratulations.....you have chosen to waste hours accomplishing taking a few minutes of a defenders time......have fun with that. i've seen many people agree it should be adjusted, but none with a CCP tag and two links being activated PAUSES, not resets, the attackers timer Again.....don't be dense. They asked for feedback and they are going to make adjustments.....that's a given. I never said the link "resets" I said it cancels you out so you run away in your trollceptor to repeat the process all over again. Time spent: Defender: A few minutes Trollceptor: 10-35ish Have fun bro.....
God's Apples Genos Occidere Warlords of the Deep 573	Posted - 2015.03.09 22:07:36 - [917] - Quote I really don't see how inties are a problem. One info linked maulus/keres/celestis prevents at least 3 ships from locking anywhere past linked FN web huginn/rapier web range. Even if the inty or t3 dessy or whatever had 250km lock range, a single bonused info linked damp brings you down 66.6%, or 83.25km lock range. Moreover, because the entosis timer is reset when you lose lock, you just have to cycle damps between as many ships as you can lock to repeatedly restart their timers. Here is an example fit: [Celestis, Entosis Counter] 1600mm Reinforced Rolled Tungsten Plates I Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II True Sansha Energized Explosive Membrane Damage Control II Experimental 10MN Microwarpdrive I Phased Muon Sensor Disruptor I, Targeting Range Dampening Script Phased Muon Sensor Disruptor I, Targeting Range Dampening Script Phased Muon Sensor Disruptor I, Targeting Range Dampening Script Phased Muon Sensor Disruptor I, Targeting Range Dampening Script Auto Targeting System I Auto Targeting System I 125mm Gatling AutoCannon I, EMP S Medium Inverted Signal Field Projector I Medium Anti-Thermic Pump I Medium Anti-Kinetic Pump I With 1 resebo and infolinks it can lock 12 targets at up to 242km. If you truly have control over the battlefield, then a handful of damp ships can fend off a horde of inties. Your lack of critical thinking skills are not justifiable cause to complain about a mechanic. "Hydra Reloaded are just jealous / butthurt on me / us because we can get tons of PVP action in empire while they aren't good enough to get that." - NightmareX
EvilweaselFinance BUTTECORP INC Goonswarm Federation 678	Posted - 2015.03.09 22:07:41 - [918] - Quote Acuma wrote: Again.....don't be dense. They asked for feedback and they are going to make adjustments.....that's a given. I never said the link "resets" I said it cancels you out so you run away in your trollceptor to repeat the process all over again. you can't say "that feedback isn't needed because they will adjust based on feedback and resolve that issue" until they actually adjust then the feedback continues
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 622	Posted - 2015.03.09 22:08:17 - [919] - Quote Acuma wrote: they are going to make adjustments [citation needed]
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 622	Posted - 2015.03.09 22:09:23 - [920] - Quote God's Apples wrote: I really don't see how inties are a problem. One info linked maulus/keres/celestis prevents at least 3 ships from locking anywhere past linked FN web huginn/rapier web range. Even if the inty or t3 dessy or whatever had 250km lock range, a single bonused info linked damp brings you down 66.6%, or 83.25km lock range. Moreover, because the entosis timer is reset when you lose lock, you just have to cycle damps between as many ships as you can lock to repeatedly restart their timers. Here is an example fit: [Celestis, Entosis Counter] 1600mm Reinforced Rolled Tungsten Plates I Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II True Sansha Energized Explosive Membrane Damage Control II Experimental 10MN Microwarpdrive I Phased Muon Sensor Disruptor I, Targeting Range Dampening Script Phased Muon Sensor Disruptor I, Targeting Range Dampening Script Phased Muon Sensor Disruptor I, Targeting Range Dampening Script Phased Muon Sensor Disruptor I, Targeting Range Dampening Script Auto Targeting System I Auto Targeting System I 125mm Gatling AutoCannon I, EMP S Medium Inverted Signal Field Projector I Medium Anti-Thermic Pump I Medium Anti-Kinetic Pump I With 1 resebo and infolinks it can lock 12 targets at up to 242km. If you truly have control over the battlefield, then a handful of damp ships can fend off a horde of inties. Your lack of critical thinking skills are not justifiable cause to complain about a mechanic. disengage and move to next target with a healthy lawl over using faction hardeners on a celestis also that 1600mm plate is sure gonna help you catching up to an interceptor

Acuma Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic 5	Posted - 2015.03.09 22:09:48 - [921] - Quote EvilweaselFinance wrote: Acuma wrote: Again.....don't be dense. They asked for feedback and they are going to make adjustments.....that's a given. I never said the link "resets" I said it cancels you out so you run away in your trollceptor to repeat the process all over again. you can't say "that feedback isn't needed because they will adjust based on feedback and resolve that issue" until they actually adjust then the feedback continues And where exactly did I say that? I said they are requesting feedback.....there's no denying that. Whether the indexes stay as is or they adjust are irrelevant......the defender still knows the timers and will still waste a whole lot less time than you trying to RF in a trollceptor. Trolling the troll as it were......have fun spending 20 minutes for every 3-4 of a single defender LOL
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 622	Posted - 2015.03.09 22:11:53 - [922] - Quote Acuma wrote: EvilweaselFinance wrote: Acuma wrote: Again.....don't be dense. They asked for feedback and they are going to make adjustments.....that's a given. I never said the link "resets" I said it cancels you out so you run away in your trollceptor to repeat the process all over again. you can't say "that feedback isn't needed because they will adjust based on feedback and resolve that issue" until they actually adjust then the feedback continues And where exactly did I say that? I said they are requesting feedback.....there's no denying that. Whether the indexes stay as is or they adjust are irrelevant......the defender still knows the timers and will still waste a whole lot less time than you trying to RF in a trollceptor. Trolling the troll as it were......have fun spending 20 minutes for every 3-4 of a single defender LOL please continue to harp on this point as if it was relevant also extended ellipsis use is one of the key signs of desperation in a poster
Alavaria Fera GoonWaffe 6589	Posted - 2015.03.09 22:13:32 - [923] - Quote I'm in shock because massadeath confessed moa was in it as mercs. you can't come at someone screaming you'll end their 0.0 dream and then be all "sorry baby, it was all about being the best paid job" your hot throbbing intention to smash though our 0.0 dream... was it all a lie?!?!!! I don't know how to take this, I need to take a rest. Maybe I will join a structure shooting fleet. ^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears. Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
Acuma Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic 5	Posted - 2015.03.09 22:13:33 - [924] - Quote Promiscuous Female wrote: Acuma wrote: EvilweaselFinance wrote: Acuma wrote: Again.....don't be dense. They asked for feedback and they are going to make adjustments.....that's a given. I never said the link "resets" I said it cancels you out so you run away in your trollceptor to repeat the process all over again. you can't say "that feedback isn't needed because they will adjust based on feedback and resolve that issue" until they actually adjust then the feedback continues And where exactly did I say that? I said they are requesting feedback.....there's no denying that. Whether the indexes stay as is or they adjust are irrelevant......the defender still knows the timers and will still waste a whole lot less time than you trying to RF in a trollceptor. Trolling the troll as it were......have fun spending 20 minutes for every 3-4 of a single defender LOL please continue to harp on this point as if it was relevant also extended ellipsis use is one of the key signs of desperation in a poster As are personal attacks. Something I noticed alot of GoOniEs have no problem with. I understand how you would think it's unreasonable to assume since they ask for feedback on the entosis they won't ask for feedback on the other mechanics.........oh wait, it's not. LOL
Alavaria Fera GoonWaffe 6589	Posted - 2015.03.09 22:15:26 - [925] - Quote Acuma wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: Acuma wrote: EvilweaselFinance wrote: Acuma wrote: Again.....don't be dense. They asked for feedback and they are going to make adjustments.....that's a given. I never said the link "resets" I said it cancels you out so you run away in your trollceptor to repeat the process all over again. you can't say "that feedback isn't needed because they will adjust based on feedback and resolve that issue" until they actually adjust then the feedback continues And where exactly did I say that? I said they are requesting feedback.....there's no denying that. Whether the indexes stay as is or they adjust are irrelevant......the defender still knows the timers and will still waste a whole lot less time than you trying to RF in a trollceptor. Trolling the troll as it were......have fun spending 20 minutes for every 3-4 of a single defender LOL please continue to harp on this point as if it was relevant also extended ellipsis use is one of the key signs of desperation in a poster As are personal attacks. Something I noticed alot of GoOniEs have no problem with. I understand how you would think it's unreasonable to assume since they ask for feedback on the entosis they won't ask for feedback on the other mechanics.........oh wait, it's not. LOL We're the bad guys, it's to be expected that people will attack our persons, as... our persons are bad, after all. ^^ 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 758	Posted - 2015.03.09 22:15:52 - [926] - Quote Promiscuous Female wrote: Veskrashen wrote: Otherwise known as "your own unsubstantiated opinion", yes. interceptors have <=2s align, 120km lock range, superlative speed and signature radius at speed these are facts, sorry to say Sure. They are, in fact, objective facts - assuming a proper fit, of course. That they are "imbalanced" is, in fact, your opinion based on your own value judgement. Since the only significant advantage they have over cloaky nullfiied T3s is their <=2sec align time, one could reasonably conclude that the only reason you consider them "imbalanced" is because you can't bubble camp them out of your precious Fortress Deklein, and will have to Benny Hill around chasing them like everyone else. I don't really think that's "imbalanced". More like "working as intended". We Gallente have a saying: "CCP created the Gallente Militia to train the Fighters..."
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 623	Posted - 2015.03.09 22:16:38 - [927] - Quote Acuma wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: Acuma wrote: EvilweaselFinance wrote: Acuma wrote: Again.....don't be dense. They asked for feedback and they are going to make adjustments.....that's a given. I never said the link "resets" I said it cancels you out so you run away in your trollceptor to repeat the process all over again. you can't say "that feedback isn't needed because they will adjust based on feedback and resolve that issue" until they actually adjust then the feedback continues And where exactly did I say that? I said they are requesting feedback.....there's no denying that. Whether the indexes stay as is or they adjust are irrelevant......the defender still knows the timers and will still waste a whole lot less time than you trying to RF in a trollceptor. Trolling the troll as it were......have fun spending 20 minutes for every 3-4 of a single defender LOL please continue to harp on this point as if it was relevant also extended ellipsis use is one of the key signs of desperation in a poster As are personal attacks. Something I noticed alot of GoOniEs have no problem with. I understand how you would think it's unreasonable to assume since they ask for feedback on the entosis they won't ask for feedback on the other mechanics.........oh wait, it's not. LOL If you repeat a lie often enough......it doesn't make it true. It's relevant to me and many others. I would love for you goonies to waste countless hours accomplishing nothing but wasting a defenders few minutes :) a personal attack requires an attack on a person, not his posts unless you identify as an anthropomorphic forums post in which case consider my biology privilege thoroughly checked
M1k3y Koontz Aether Ventures Surely You're Joking 733	Posted - 2015.03.09 22:17:24 - [928] - Quote Promiscuous Female wrote: M1k3y Koontz wrote: https://i.imgur.com/dZoUBJK.jpg 45 DPS at 124km, your interceptor is dead in under a minute (55.5 seconds, yes I did the math) It's also a fifth the cost. Your move. please do not post fits that only kill the interceptor inside of a very short, narrow range where the interceptor would not be in any even remotely plausible pvp scenario basically only post RLML fits, and even then i hope you have 200km+ range "look at the graph it has a point this is where I can guarantee a ship to be at all times" Reload with Iron and it'll deal 90 DPS from 20km to 100. That fit will kill interceptors, any range a Rapier can't web at. How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp.
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 623	Posted - 2015.03.09 22:17:32 - [929] - Quote Veskrashen wrote: Since the only significant advantage they have over cloaky nullfiied T3s is their <=2sec align time this just in signature radius and speed are not significant or advantages
Gizznitt Malikite Agony Unleashed Agony Empire 4241	Posted - 2015.03.09 22:18:41 - [930] - Quote Promiscuous Female wrote: God's Apples wrote: I really don't see how inties are a problem. One info linked maulus/keres/celestis prevents at least 3 ships from locking anywhere past linked FN web huginn/rapier web range. Even if the inty or t3 dessy or whatever had 250km lock range, a single bonused info linked damp brings you down 66.6%, or 83.25km lock range. Moreover, because the entosis timer is reset when you lose lock, you just have to cycle damps between as many ships as you can lock to repeatedly restart their timers. Here is an example fit: [Celestis, Entosis Counter] 1600mm Reinforced Rolled Tungsten Plates I Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II True Sansha Energized Explosive Membrane Damage Control II Experimental 10MN Microwarpdrive I Phased Muon Sensor Disruptor I, Targeting Range Dampening Script Phased Muon Sensor Disruptor I, Targeting Range Dampening Script Phased Muon Sensor Disruptor I, Targeting Range Dampening Script Phased Muon Sensor Disruptor I, Targeting Range Dampening Script Auto Targeting System I Auto Targeting System I 125mm Gatling AutoCannon I, EMP S Medium Inverted Signal Field Projector I Medium Anti-Thermic Pump I Medium Anti-Kinetic Pump I With 1 resebo and infolinks it can lock 12 targets at up to 242km. If you truly have control over the battlefield, then a handful of damp ships can fend off a horde of inties. Your lack of critical thinking skills are not justifiable cause to complain about a mechanic. disengage and move to next target with a healthy lawl over using faction hardeners on a celestis also that 1600mm plate is sure gonna help you catching up to an interceptor So what, the locals resecure the target in half the time it took you to make progress on it, then move to your new target and save that one too. The faction hardener is there for it's reduced cpu, and isn't very expensive. And the celestis isn't there to catch the interceptor, only to neutralize it. You don't have to destroy an opponent to inhibit them.

Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 623	Posted - 2015.03.09 22:19:05 - [931] - Quote M1k3y Koontz wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: M1k3y Koontz wrote: https://i.imgur.com/dZoUBJK.jpg 45 DPS at 124km, your interceptor is dead in under a minute (55.5 seconds, yes I did the math) It's also a fifth the cost. Your move. please do not post fits that only kill the interceptor inside of a very short, narrow range where the interceptor would not be in any even remotely plausible pvp scenario basically only post RLML fits, and even then i hope you have 200km+ range "look at the graph it has a point this is where I can guarantee a ship to be at all times" Reload with Iron and it'll deal 90 DPS from 20km to 100. That fit will kill interceptors, any range a Rapier can't web at. i'm sure if you ask nicely the interceptor will sit inside this range for you while you wait for target lock to complete
Acuma Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic 5	Posted - 2015.03.09 22:21:01 - [932] - Quote Promiscuous Female wrote: a personal attack requires an attack on a person, not his posts unless you identify as an anthropomorphic forums post in which case consider my biology privilege thoroughly checked Are you new to the internet? Attacking someone's grammar when you fail to make your argument.......LMAO
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 623	Posted - 2015.03.09 22:21:07 - [933] - Quote Gizznitt Malikite wrote: And the celestis isn't there to catch the interceptor, only to neutralize it. You don't have to destroy an opponent to inhibit them. the best part is where everyone has given up on the dream of trying to kill the interceptor and are now just trying to damp it out it's almost like everyone instinctively knows that interceptors are too difficult to kill in any normal pvp situation
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 15436	Posted - 2015.03.09 22:21:12 - [934] - Quote Ranger 1 wrote: EvilweaselFinance wrote: Eli Apol wrote: I'm using the maximum for effect - we can do 27minutes instead and still have a 29:12 ratio of time wasted by the trollceptor pilot versus the defender. Point still stands. edit: And just done with replying to the ship-toaster not the thread in general :) so yes, we remain in a bore-off but without the thin advantage of a massive inbalance in favor of the defender, merely a moderate one what fun The only real disadvantage is being inflicted on sov holders with more systems than they can cover... everybody else is just fine., thanks. Having battles over sov consisting of nothing but trollcepters and their ineffective counters is not a healthy game or what CCP wants. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
1nverted What Could Go Wrong Overload Everything 2	Posted - 2015.03.09 22:21:49 - [935] - Quote It seems incredible that some people are still defending trollceptors in light of Fozzie's original post:. In that post, he said this: 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. One of the points of this thread is to discuss how CCP can avoid trollceptors becoming a thing. I suggest a speed limit of 3500m/s on ships using the entosis link. Goons should stop saying how stupid trollceptors are (that is a given) and start making suggestions as to how to avoid them. The other posters should stop defending the idea of a trollceptor. Fozzie's post says that CCP's focus is to ensure a command node is won by the party controlling the grid. Kiting interceptors at 10,000m/s do not fulfil that goal and will therefore not be allowed.
God's Apples Genos Occidere Warlords of the Deep 573	Posted - 2015.03.09 22:22:22 - [936] - Quote Promiscuous Female wrote: God's Apples wrote: I really don't see how inties are a problem. One info linked maulus/keres/celestis prevents at least 3 ships from locking anywhere past linked FN web huginn/rapier web range. Even if the inty or t3 dessy or whatever had 250km lock range, a single bonused info linked damp brings you down 66.6%, or 83.25km lock range. Moreover, because the entosis timer is reset when you lose lock, you just have to cycle damps between as many ships as you can lock to repeatedly restart their timers. Here is an example fit: [Celestis, Entosis Counter] 1600mm Reinforced Rolled Tungsten Plates I Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II True Sansha Energized Explosive Membrane Damage Control II Experimental 10MN Microwarpdrive I Phased Muon Sensor Disruptor I, Targeting Range Dampening Script Phased Muon Sensor Disruptor I, Targeting Range Dampening Script Phased Muon Sensor Disruptor I, Targeting Range Dampening Script Phased Muon Sensor Disruptor I, Targeting Range Dampening Script Auto Targeting System I Auto Targeting System I 125mm Gatling AutoCannon I, EMP S Medium Inverted Signal Field Projector I Medium Anti-Thermic Pump I Medium Anti-Kinetic Pump I With 1 resebo and infolinks it can lock 12 targets at up to 242km. If you truly have control over the battlefield, then a handful of damp ships can fend off a horde of inties. Your lack of critical thinking skills are not justifiable cause to complain about a mechanic. disengage and move to next target with a healthy lawl over using faction hardeners on a celestis also that 1600mm plate is sure gonna help you catching up to an interceptor Yes because you're trying to catch inties with a ******* celestis... You really are a moron. The faction hard costs next to nothing. The point is that there are going to be 5 of these beacons in a region. 1 celestis counters 12 inties. It's not hard to do the math to realize that you only need 40 - 50 if that many people to defend against 250 - 400 inties. Think about it. To defend against 50 inties you need 3 celestises, a huginn, a lach, 3 guardians, and a couple long range dps (protei, legions, zealots, ishtars, etc). Remember that with the exception of the guardians, all of those ships can fit entosis links of their own (the 125 AC is just a placeholder on my celestis fit). There, you just countered a 50 man inty blob with 10 - 12 dudes. "Hydra Reloaded are just jealous / butthurt on me / us because we can get tons of PVP action in empire while they aren't good enough to get that." - NightmareX
Acuma Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic 5	Posted - 2015.03.09 22:22:53 - [937] - Quote Seems mostly that only the goonies are afraid of trollceptors.......even with their "superior numbers" and their "we'll burn null sec to the ground if this is allowed." Wonder why that is? Too much space? To many renters? Afraid of spread out fights instead of blobs?
1nverted What Could Go Wrong Overload Everything 2	Posted - 2015.03.09 22:23:07 - [938] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Ranger 1 wrote: EvilweaselFinance wrote: Eli Apol wrote: I'm using the maximum for effect - we can do 27minutes instead and still have a 29:12 ratio of time wasted by the trollceptor pilot versus the defender. Point still stands. edit: And just done with replying to the ship-toaster not the thread in general :) so yes, we remain in a bore-off but without the thin advantage of a massive inbalance in favor of the defender, merely a moderate one what fun The only real disadvantage is being inflicted on sov holders with more systems than they can cover... everybody else is just fine., thanks. Having battles over sov consisting of nothing but trollcepters and their ineffective counters is not a healthy game or what CCP wants. QUOTE FOR TRUTH
Nolak Ataru KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 767	Posted - 2015.03.09 22:23:30 - [939] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Having battles over sov consisting of nothing but trollcepters and their ineffective counters is not a healthy game or what CCP wants. Jesus christ I'm agreeing with baltec1.......
Yroc Jannseen Enlightened Industries Goonswarm Federation 68	Posted - 2015.03.09 22:23:57 - [940] - Quote Acuma wrote: Seems mostly that only the goonies are afraid of trollceptors.......even with their "superior numbers" and their "we'll burn null sec to the ground if this is allowed." Wonder why that is? Too much space? To many renters? Afraid of spread out fights instead of blobs? You confuse fear with telling you exactly what is going to happen to everyone else.

Tipa Riot Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 155	Posted - 2015.03.09 22:24:41 - [941] - Quote Theorycrafting is of little help here IMO, put that thing on SiSi and we can experiment ... I'm my own NPC alt.
Acuma Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic 5	Posted - 2015.03.09 22:25:34 - [942] - Quote Yroc Jannseen wrote: Acuma wrote: Seems mostly that only the goonies are afraid of trollceptors.......even with their "superior numbers" and their "we'll burn null sec to the ground if this is allowed." Wonder why that is? Too much space? To many renters? Afraid of spread out fights instead of blobs? You confuse fear with telling you exactly what is going to happen to everyone else. Nah, a lone ceptor is worthless. To take sovereignty, you'll have to bring more. That includes destroying ihubs. This is much ado about nothing, probably cause ya'll don't want to defend empty systems.
Alp Khan GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 291	Posted - 2015.03.09 22:26:11 - [943] - Quote MASSADEATH wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: Veskrashen wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: MASSADEATH wrote: come on a corm sniping fleet :) and it will cure your doubts ah yes the cormorant with its staggering 80-100km range Combat probes will land it in engagement range every time. 100km is plenty when you land within 50-70km of your target. combat probes show up on dscan the interceptor gets to disengage before you even start aligning for warp in your slow ass destroyers DO YOU GUYS EVEN PVP? are you telling me you are incapable of killing ceptors? you just alpha them off the grid.... lock target.... POP..... ceptor gone.... heck you even know the max range of where they have to be around a given structure... If you consider exclusively dropping on AFK ratting ships in stealth bombers, or flying around in interceptors that CANNOT be tracked by guns and can easily burn out of effective missile ranges, no. We don't at all. Nobody does, because it's only a few organizations that deceive themselves into believing that they are -truly- masters of ~elite PvP~. I would, on the other hand, also love to hear what your definition of real gang engagements, or fleet battles are. Those require commitment and shooting at stuff that might shoot you back after all. Anyway, let's move on with the matter at hand. Now, aside from your failed rhetoric, a proper interceptor will always be able to burn out of any weapon range that can hit it. Then he can simply do grid-fu and for all intents and purposes, be gone. The reason you are deceptive and are deflecting with empty rhetoric and non-substantial claims like "TARGET.. SHOOT.. POP.. INTERCEPTOR GONE.." (which is not true, as anyone worth their salt knows it) you already realize the inherent low cost (on SP, on hull and module price) of an interceptor, and are counting on that. An interceptor is a cheap ship. You aren't losing anything serious, and you can easily chain lose them, or just throw tens or cheap, insta-warp entosis interceptors around a large region to create havoc. What you want is exactly why cheap ships that are able to travel around by ignoring any gatecamp or defensive effort is broken; You want to be able to contest without commitment. You want to be able to contest without dedicating resources. You want to talk the talk, but you don't really want to walk the walk. I don't think that's something that is realistically going to happen (nor it should ever be) under any circumstance, sorry.
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 626	Posted - 2015.03.09 22:26:14 - [944] - Quote God's Apples wrote: Think about it. To defend against 50 inties you need 3 celestises, a huginn, a lach, 3 guardians, and a couple long range dps (protei, legions, zealots, ishtars, etc). Remember that with the exception of the guardians, all of those ships can fit entosis links of their own (the 125 AC is just a placeholder on my celestis fit). There, you just countered a 50 man inty blob with 10 - 12 dudes. how does this recon/sniper gang cover 50 objectives at once
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 15436	Posted - 2015.03.09 22:26:35 - [945] - Quote Acuma wrote: Seems mostly that only the goonies are afraid of trollceptors.......even with their "superior numbers" and their "we'll burn null sec to the ground if this is allowed." Wonder why that is? Too much space? To many renters? Afraid of spread out fights instead of blobs? All it takes is a tanked out maller alt sitting on a structure......ya'll don't have alts? So were you also one of the people that defended tech moons when we said they were a terrible idea? Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
Veskrashen Justified Chaos Spaceship Bebop 759	Posted - 2015.03.09 22:27:29 - [946] - Quote Promiscuous Female wrote: Veskrashen wrote: Since the only significant advantage they have over cloaky nullfiied T3s is their <=2sec align time this just in signature radius and speed are not significant or advantages Nope, not really. Not when your signature radius and speed aren't significant enough to save you from being murderfied by anyone with half a brain. We Gallente have a saying: "CCP created the Gallente Militia to train the Fighters..."
Acuma Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic 6	Posted - 2015.03.09 22:27:58 - [947] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Acuma wrote: Seems mostly that only the goonies are afraid of trollceptors.......even with their "superior numbers" and their "we'll burn null sec to the ground if this is allowed." Wonder why that is? Too much space? To many renters? Afraid of spread out fights instead of blobs? All it takes is a tanked out maller alt sitting on a structure......ya'll don't have alts? So were you also one of the people that defended tech moons when we said they were a terrible idea? So you like arguing with strawmen?
M1k3y Koontz Aether Ventures Surely You're Joking 733	Posted - 2015.03.09 22:28:21 - [948] - Quote Promiscuous Female wrote: God's Apples wrote: I really don't see how inties are a problem. One info linked maulus/keres/celestis prevents at least 3 ships from locking anywhere past linked FN web huginn/rapier web range. Even if the inty or t3 dessy or whatever had 250km lock range, a single bonused info linked damp brings you down 66.6%, or 83.25km lock range. Moreover, because the entosis timer is reset when you lose lock, you just have to cycle damps between as many ships as you can lock to repeatedly restart their timers. Here is an example fit: [Celestis, Entosis Counter] 1600mm Reinforced Rolled Tungsten Plates I Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II True Sansha Energized Explosive Membrane Damage Control II Experimental 10MN Microwarpdrive I Phased Muon Sensor Disruptor I, Targeting Range Dampening Script Phased Muon Sensor Disruptor I, Targeting Range Dampening Script Phased Muon Sensor Disruptor I, Targeting Range Dampening Script Phased Muon Sensor Disruptor I, Targeting Range Dampening Script Auto Targeting System I Auto Targeting System I 125mm Gatling AutoCannon I, EMP S Medium Inverted Signal Field Projector I Medium Anti-Thermic Pump I Medium Anti-Kinetic Pump I With 1 resebo and infolinks it can lock 12 targets at up to 242km. If you truly have control over the battlefield, then a handful of damp ships can fend off a horde of inties. Your lack of critical thinking skills are not justifiable cause to complain about a mechanic. disengage and move to next target with a healthy lawl over using faction hardeners on a celestis also that 1600mm plate is sure gonna help you catching up to an interceptor The inty ran away? Defense successful. Whats the problem? Also the faction explosive hardener is a few hundred thousand isk, maybe a few mill. They aren't pricey. How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp.
Eli Apol Pro Synergy 350	Posted - 2015.03.09 22:28:34 - [949] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Ranger 1 wrote: EvilweaselFinance wrote: Eli Apol wrote: I'm using the maximum for effect - we can do 27minutes instead and still have a 29:12 ratio of time wasted by the trollceptor pilot versus the defender. Point still stands. edit: And just done with replying to the ship-toaster not the thread in general :) so yes, we remain in a bore-off but without the thin advantage of a massive inbalance in favor of the defender, merely a moderate one what fun The only real disadvantage is being inflicted on sov holders with more systems than they can cover... everybody else is just fine., thanks. Having battles over sov consisting of nothing but trollcepters and their ineffective counters is not a healthy game or what CCP wants. From what I'm reading - there is no intent to actually battle over sov. It was a stupid idea trying to show an exploit in the mechanics that could be used as griefing and which has now been proven multiple times to actually cause more grief for the person trying to do it if the space is defended as well as risk fairly expensive frigates to do so. Proper sov 'battles' will still involve proper 'battling' ships. So yes I agree with you, trollceptors and their numerous counters won't play a part in actual sov warfare - aside from some specific usage as a questionable method of attrition.
Alavaria Fera GoonWaffe 6591	Posted - 2015.03.09 22:28:43 - [950] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Ranger 1 wrote: EvilweaselFinance wrote: Eli Apol wrote: I'm using the maximum for effect - we can do 27minutes instead and still have a 29:12 ratio of time wasted by the trollceptor pilot versus the defender. Point still stands. edit: And just done with replying to the ship-toaster not the thread in general :) so yes, we remain in a bore-off but without the thin advantage of a massive inbalance in favor of the defender, merely a moderate one what fun The only real disadvantage is being inflicted on sov holders with more systems than they can cover... everybody else is just fine., thanks. Having battles over sov consisting of nothing but trollcepters and their ineffective counters is not a healthy game or what CCP wants. Whoa there How do you know it isn't what ccp wants ^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears. Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.

Gizznitt Malikite Agony Unleashed Agony Empire 4241	Posted - 2015.03.09 22:28:50 - [951] - Quote Promiscuous Female wrote: Gizznitt Malikite wrote: And the celestis isn't there to catch the interceptor, only to neutralize it. You don't have to destroy an opponent to inhibit them. the best part is where everyone has given up on the dream of trying to kill the interceptor and are now just trying to damp it out it's almost like everyone instinctively knows that interceptors are too difficult to kill in any normal pvp situation I'm not a fan of interdiction nullification... on any ship. That being said, inties have their weaknesses as well as strengths. They can be sniped and/or caught by insta-lock gate camps. They aren't easy to catch and kill, especially if they are warping around the system, but that doesn't mean they accomplish anything. I can bring in an inty and inhibit miners and ratters today, the main difference is that an inty pilot today is more limited in the trouble they can cause.
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 626	Posted - 2015.03.09 22:29:26 - [952] - Quote Acuma wrote: Seems mostly that only the goonies are afraid of trollceptors....... argumentum ad populum
Alavaria Fera GoonWaffe 6591	Posted - 2015.03.09 22:30:42 - [953] - Quote Yroc Jannseen wrote: Acuma wrote: Seems mostly that only the goonies are afraid of trollceptors.......even with their "superior numbers" and their "we'll burn null sec to the ground if this is allowed." Wonder why that is? Too much space? To many renters? Afraid of spread out fights instead of blobs? You confuse fear with telling you exactly what is going to happen to everyone else. Our 0.0 dream will be ended. moa will take our sov and we will be forced into a new world of not having our sov anymore i don't think anyone is even getting it, i feel so discouraged. especially after hearing moa was in it as mercs. i don't know who to trust anymore ^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears. Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 626	Posted - 2015.03.09 22:31:23 - [954] - Quote Veskrashen wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: Veskrashen wrote: Since the only significant advantage they have over cloaky nullfiied T3s is their <=2sec align time this just in signature radius and speed are not significant or advantages Nope, not really. Not when your signature radius and speed aren't significant enough to save you from being murderfied by anyone with half a brain. what's tracking precious
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 626	Posted - 2015.03.09 22:32:12 - [955] - Quote M1k3y Koontz wrote: The inty ran away? Defense successful. Whats the problem? the interceptor did not die and is hitting a new structure
M1k3y Koontz Aether Ventures Surely You're Joking 733	Posted - 2015.03.09 22:32:15 - [956] - Quote Promiscuous Female wrote: M1k3y Koontz wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: M1k3y Koontz wrote: https://i.imgur.com/dZoUBJK.jpg 45 DPS at 124km, your interceptor is dead in under a minute (55.5 seconds, yes I did the math) It's also a fifth the cost. Your move. please do not post fits that only kill the interceptor inside of a very short, narrow range where the interceptor would not be in any even remotely plausible pvp scenario basically only post RLML fits, and even then i hope you have 200km+ range "look at the graph it has a point this is where I can guarantee a ship to be at all times" Reload with Iron and it'll deal 90 DPS from 20km to 100. That fit will kill interceptors, any range a Rapier can't web at. i'm sure if you ask nicely the interceptor will sit inside this range for you while you wait for target lock to complete https://i.imgur.com/lijxgt4.jpg Oh look, I can hit at any range over 40km. If it's closer than 40km any Rapier could kill it without breaking a sweat. How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp.
Acuma Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic 6	Posted - 2015.03.09 22:32:55 - [957] - Quote Promiscuous Female wrote: Acuma wrote: Seems mostly that only the goonies are afraid of trollceptors....... argumentum ad populum Not really, since most of Eve isn't goonies. Do you wanna try to refute facts or just divert?
Tycho VI Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective 8	Posted - 2015.03.09 22:33:26 - [958] - Quote Some people might find it fun....but honestly, having to attend 4 hour CTA where u gotta go out and deal with arty claw fleets, svipul fleets, exclusively where no real value is put on the table...all the time....otherwise your station assets get locked out... meh might actually have more fun just staging out of lowsec
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 626	Posted - 2015.03.09 22:34:35 - [959] - Quote M1k3y Koontz wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: M1k3y Koontz wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: M1k3y Koontz wrote: https://i.imgur.com/dZoUBJK.jpg 45 DPS at 124km, your interceptor is dead in under a minute (55.5 seconds, yes I did the math) It's also a fifth the cost. Your move. please do not post fits that only kill the interceptor inside of a very short, narrow range where the interceptor would not be in any even remotely plausible pvp scenario basically only post RLML fits, and even then i hope you have 200km+ range "look at the graph it has a point this is where I can guarantee a ship to be at all times" Reload with Iron and it'll deal 90 DPS from 20km to 100. That fit will kill interceptors, any range a Rapier can't web at. i'm sure if you ask nicely the interceptor will sit inside this range for you while you wait for target lock to complete https://i.imgur.com/lijxgt4.jpg Oh look, I can hit at any range over 40km. If it's closer than 40km any Rapier could kill it without breaking a sweat. i see that your tactic is now making the engagement range smaller and smaller when the interceptor is shrugging out at 120km
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 626	Posted - 2015.03.09 22:35:23 - [960] - Quote Acuma wrote: Not really, since most of Eve isn't goonies. Do you wanna try to refute facts or just divert? that is not what argumentum ad populum means

M1k3y Koontz Aether Ventures Surely You're Joking 733	Posted - 2015.03.09 22:35:24 - [961] - Quote Acuma wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: Acuma wrote: Seems mostly that only the goonies are afraid of trollceptors....... argumentum ad populum Not really, since most of Eve isn't goonies. Do you wanna try to refute facts or just divert? Promiscuous Female wrote: the interceptor did not die and is hitting a new structure And wasted 10-35 minutes doing so compared to the defenders 2-4 minutes. That'll repeat in the "new" structure unless it's undefended...... They have no legs to stand on so all they can do is spam and divert. How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp.
God's Apples Genos Occidere Warlords of the Deep 573	Posted - 2015.03.09 22:36:16 - [962] - Quote Promiscuous Female wrote: God's Apples wrote: Think about it. To defend against 50 inties you need 3 celestises, a huginn, a lach, 3 guardians, and a couple long range dps (protei, legions, zealots, ishtars, etc). Remember that with the exception of the guardians, all of those ships can fit entosis links of their own (the 125 AC is just a placeholder on my celestis fit). There, you just countered a 50 man inty blob with 10 - 12 dudes. how does this recon/sniper gang cover 50 objectives at once Lemme break it down. There are 5 objectives. You have 50 dudes. The enemy has a 250 man interceptor fleet. You break your gang into 5 sub-units of the comp I describe above. Each sub-unit defends one objective. If the enemy gang splits itself into 5 groups like you are suggesting that inties will do in order to cover the most ground, then you can easily defend by having each of your gangs sit at 0 on the objective beacons. If you need more than 5x the numbers to beat an enemy, then your strategy is flawed and you need to rethink your gameplan. "Hydra Reloaded are just jealous / butthurt on me / us because we can get tons of PVP action in empire while they aren't good enough to get that." - NightmareX
Alavaria Fera GoonWaffe 6593	Posted - 2015.03.09 22:36:54 - [963] - Quote Tycho VI wrote: Some people might find it fun....but honestly, having to attend 4 hour CTA where u gotta go out and deal with arty claw fleets, svipul fleets, exclusively where no real value is put on the table...all the time....otherwise your station assets get locked out... meh might actually have more fun just staging out of lowsec and being the problem So, you've giving up your 0.0 dream to northernassociates then? Ooohh, are you going to join moa and take away our 0.0 dream? ^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears. Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 631	Posted - 2015.03.09 22:37:26 - [964] - Quote God's Apples wrote: Lemme break it down. There are 5 objectives. You have 50 dudes. The enemy has a 250 man interceptor fleet. You break your gang into 5 sub-units of the comp I describe above. Each sub-unit defends one objective. If the enemy gang splits itself into 5 groups like you are suggesting that inties will do in order to cover the most ground, then you can easily defend by having each of your gangs sit at 0 on the objective beacons. If you need more than 5x the numbers to beat an enemy, then your strategy is flawed and you need to rethink your gameplan. no there are three times as many objectives as you have systems i guess if you have one station system and one unstationed system then you have five
FT Diomedes The Graduates Forged of Fire 861	Posted - 2015.03.09 22:38:18 - [965] - Quote Eli Apol wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: interceptor disengages and goes to new objective it cannot be killed Didn't want those 42 minutes anyways? That time does not have to be continuous. The Greatest Ship Ever. Credit to Shahfluffers.
M1k3y Koontz Aether Ventures Surely You're Joking 733	Posted - 2015.03.09 22:38:18 - [966] - Quote Promiscuous Female wrote: i see that your tactic is now making the engagement range smaller and smaller when the interceptor is shrugging out at 120km I'm not seeing what the problem there is. It will kill the interceptor. Regardless of if its at 120 or 40. If it's closer than 40 it wouldn't be necessary at all, and a Rapier can kill it. So again, do you have a point? Or are you just spamming up the thread to make it hard for CCP to catch up? How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp.
Veskrashen Justified Chaos Spaceship Bebop 759	Posted - 2015.03.09 22:38:32 - [967] - Quote Promiscuous Female wrote: Veskrashen wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: Veskrashen wrote: Since the only significant advantage they have over cloaky nullfiied T3s is their <=2sec align time this just in signature radius and speed are not significant or advantages Nope, not really. Not when your signature radius and speed aren't significant enough to save you from being murderfied by anyone with half a brain. what's tracking precious What's a 10mn MWD Svipul, Precious? Not only does it have combat probes to start the fight quickly, not only does it have the speed to catch you, not only does it carry scram/web to pin you down, not only does it have enough DPS to murder your Trollceptor in about 10 seconds, not only does it have enough tank to handle 3:1 odds against Trollceptors all day erryday no problem... it's also cheaper than your Trollceptors to boot. A single one could clear you off all the objectives in a system in under a minute. If you stay, you die. If you don't, he wins. We Gallente have a saying: "CCP created the Gallente Militia to train the Fighters..."
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 631	Posted - 2015.03.09 22:40:00 - [968] - Quote M1k3y Koontz wrote: Acuma wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: Acuma wrote: Seems mostly that only the goonies are afraid of trollceptors....... argumentum ad populum Not really, since most of Eve isn't goonies. Do you wanna try to refute facts or just divert? Promiscuous Female wrote: the interceptor did not die and is hitting a new structure And wasted 10-35 minutes doing so compared to the defenders 2-4 minutes. That'll repeat in the "new" structure unless it's undefended...... They have no legs to stand on so all they can do is spam and divert. truly your eft warrioring has swept my legs out from under me this increasingly shorter procession of effective ranges is bound to slay me eventually i am continually wetting my pants in trepidation for your next post, most likely a blaster brutix
knobber Jobbler Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 525	Posted - 2015.03.09 22:40:09 - [969] - Quote Acuma wrote: Seems mostly that only the goonies are afraid of trollceptors.......even with their "superior numbers" and their "we'll burn null sec to the ground if this is allowed." Wonder why that is? Too much space? To many renters? Afraid of spread out fights instead of blobs? All it takes is a tanked out maller alt sitting on a structure......ya'll don't have alts? Do you like the idea of the 1000 Goon sov laser raid on all and sundry? Because it will happen and it will be funny. Also, stop being bitter because we're right, just like the tech nerf, just like the sentry nerf.
Alavaria Fera GoonWaffe 6593	Posted - 2015.03.09 22:40:13 - [970] - Quote Now I'm really confused about if our 0.0 dream is going to end or not.... are you going to steal it away or are you not going to, give a straight answer, sheesh. someone could get fed up of being given the run around ^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears. Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.

M1k3y Koontz Aether Ventures Surely You're Joking 733	Posted - 2015.03.09 22:40:28 - [971] - Quote FT Diomedes wrote: Eli Apol wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: interceptor disengages and goes to new objective it cannot be killed Didn't want those 42 minutes anyways? That time does not have to be continuous. "Repairs" can be made by using a friendly Entosis link. If they aren't continuous the required time will increase. How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp.
Alavaria Fera GoonWaffe 6593	Posted - 2015.03.09 22:41:49 - [972] - Quote So the person repairing is... not chasing the guy with the hostile link? or perhaps this is like a 2defender1attacker type scenario? 2def1atk ^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears. Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 631	Posted - 2015.03.09 22:42:22 - [973] - Quote Veskrashen wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: Veskrashen wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: Veskrashen wrote: Since the only significant advantage they have over cloaky nullfiied T3s is their <=2sec align time this just in signature radius and speed are not significant or advantages Nope, not really. Not when your signature radius and speed aren't significant enough to save you from being murderfied by anyone with half a brain. what's tracking precious What's a 10mn MWD Svipul, Precious? Not only does it have combat probes to start the fight quickly, not only does it have the speed to catch you, not only does it carry scram/web to pin you down, not only does it have enough DPS to murder your Trollceptor in about 10 seconds, not only does it have enough tank to handle 3:1 odds against Trollceptors all day erryday no problem... it's also cheaper than your Trollceptors to boot. A single one could clear you off all the objectives in a system in under a minute. If you stay, you die. If you don't, he wins. you live in a crazy world where oversized mwds allow you to turn at all
Tycho VI Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective 8	Posted - 2015.03.09 22:43:29 - [974] - Quote Veskrashen wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: Veskrashen wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: Veskrashen wrote: Since the only significant advantage they have over cloaky nullfiied T3s is their <=2sec align time this just in signature radius and speed are not significant or advantages Nope, not really. Not when your signature radius and speed aren't significant enough to save you from being murderfied by anyone with half a brain. what's tracking precious What's a 10mn MWD Svipul, Precious? Not only does it have combat probes to start the fight quickly, not only does it have the speed to catch you, not only does it carry scram/web to pin you down, not only does it have enough DPS to murder your Trollceptor in about 10 seconds, not only does it have enough tank to handle 3:1 odds against Trollceptors all day erryday no problem... it's also cheaper than your Trollceptors to boot. A single one could clear you off all the objectives in a system in under a minute. If you stay, you die. If you don't, he wins. And then you start using Trollvipuls :P
M1k3y Koontz Aether Ventures Surely You're Joking 733	Posted - 2015.03.09 22:43:35 - [975] - Quote Promiscuous Female wrote: truly your eft warrioring has swept my legs out from under me this increasingly shorter procession of effective ranges is bound to slay me eventually i am continually wetting my pants in trepidation for your next post, most likely a blaster brutix You've yet to show why a sniper corm won't kill an Inty, thus you have no legs to stand on. All of your posts lack substance, so either you're trolling or intentionally spamming up the thread to hide the fact that the inties are in fact counterable. It' basic PVP, if someone is too far away, load longer range ammo. If someone is closer, load higher damage/better tracking. So tell me, how are these mythical trollceptors going to take over all of null if a 15m cormorant can kill them or drive them off? How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp.
Eli Apol Pro Synergy 350	Posted - 2015.03.09 22:43:58 - [976] - Quote Alavaria Fera wrote: So the person repairing is... not chasing the guy with the hostile link? or perhaps this is like a 2defender1attacker type scenario? 2def1atk I don't think anyone's bothering to chase...just a local defender with a spare maulus in dockup.
Acuma Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic 6	Posted - 2015.03.09 22:44:40 - [977] - Quote Promiscuous Female wrote: M1k3y Koontz wrote: Acuma wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: argumentum ad populum Not really, since most of Eve isn't goonies. Do you wanna try to refute facts or just divert? Promiscuous Female wrote: the interceptor did not die and is hitting a new structure And wasted 10-35 minutes doing so compared to the defenders 2-4 minutes. That'll repeat in the "new" structure unless it's undefended...... They have no legs to stand on so all they can do is spam and divert. truly your eft warrioring has swept my legs out from under me this increasingly shorter procession of effective ranges is bound to slay me eventually i am continually wetting my pants in trepidation for your next post, most likely a blaster brutix Clearly you and the goons don't like a ship that can bypass gate camps. The tears are overwhelming. Is it really so difficult for you to launch a single frigate in a system? I thought you goonies claimed "overwhelming numbers" and "we'll burn down nullsec with trollceptors?" I'm confused.......which is it? Burning down nullsec, boring gameplay where you waste a half an hour for every 5 minutes of the defender, or will it be something different in a few days......for the Sake of EVE?
Eli Apol Pro Synergy 350	Posted - 2015.03.09 22:45:26 - [978] - Quote Tycho VI wrote: And then you start using Trollvipuls :P Which can (and will) die a fiery death in a bubbled gate camp. Have we reached the end game of this meta?
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 635	Posted - 2015.03.09 22:46:31 - [979] - Quote M1k3y Koontz wrote: You've yet to show why a sniper corm won't kill an Inty, thus you have no legs to stand on. the interceptor burns out of the sniper cormorant's ridicuously tiny window of effective damage application it has the time to do this because dscan, warp deceleration, and the interceptor's tiny signature radius exist i said this before but i guess the alliance tag i am wearing to the left of my posts is forming some sort of information prism where objective facts get transmuted into agitprop
Mike Azariah The Scope Gallente Federation 2614	Posted - 2015.03.09 22:47:09 - [980] - Quote OK, I had to go back to the start to remember what this thread is about. Imagine my surprise when it wasn't interceptors. Oh, they were mentioned Quote: 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. So I am willing to see how it develops. Prom Fem could be right, could be wrong . . . not worth losing sleep over, either way. Quote: 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? I understand the worries but let's look at some other ideas along the way. Mins one about fuel to run the link, Making hit and run throughout a region problematic without logistical support. Or the more reasonable one about a proper fleet challenging another proper fleet. Of course if the goal is dominance of the grid then it is reasonable for the larger fleet to win, no? Even if one of the goals was to lessen the impact of N+1 Can interceptors be an irritant? Yes. Can they be chased off to irritate someone else? Yes If properly prepared can they be swatted? Probably. Why is nobody bringing up caps as a viable composition? How about Stealth Bombers? (I think they would be fairly good at it, especially if blops behind the lines of a larger organization.) It is hard to imagine this being playtested on Sisi because so much of it WILL be psyops. So we can theroycraft and posture all you want . . . it will be tested when the rubber hits the road. I agree that maybe one of the things that needs looking at is how the indices are done, so more organizations have a method of getting to the magic 40 number as part of their defense. yeeah, I am caught up . . . darn you, Potato for stealing my gimmick of thread stats. m Mike Azariah Gö¼GöÇGöÇGö¼n++ ¯\|(pâä)/¯

Acuma Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic 6	Posted - 2015.03.09 22:47:18 - [981] - Quote knobber Jobbler wrote: Acuma wrote: Seems mostly that only the goonies are afraid of trollceptors.......even with their "superior numbers" and their "we'll burn null sec to the ground if this is allowed." Wonder why that is? Too much space? To many renters? Afraid of spread out fights instead of blobs? All it takes is a tanked out maller alt sitting on a structure......ya'll don't have alts? Do you like the idea of the 1000 Goon sov laser raid on all and sundry? Because it will happen and it will be funny. Also, stop being bitter because we're right, just like the tech nerf, just like the sentry nerf. I cherish the idea. You waste a ton of time and are countered by a single person with a few minutes? How long can you keep that up? That's just to RF a structure.....you actually have to come back LOL.
Alavaria Fera GoonWaffe 6594	Posted - 2015.03.09 22:48:42 - [982] - Quote Acuma wrote: knobber Jobbler wrote: Acuma wrote: Seems mostly that only the goonies are afraid of trollceptors.......even with their "superior numbers" and their "we'll burn null sec to the ground if this is allowed." Wonder why that is? Too much space? To many renters? Afraid of spread out fights instead of blobs? All it takes is a tanked out maller alt sitting on a structure......ya'll don't have alts? Do you like the idea of the 1000 Goon sov laser raid on all and sundry? Because it will happen and it will be funny. Also, stop being bitter because we're right, just like the tech nerf, just like the sentry nerf. I cherish the idea. You waste a ton of time and are countered by a single person with a few minutes? How long can you keep that up? That's just to RF a structure.....you actually have to come back LOL. Wait, but if that's the case then how will moa end our 0.0 dream. Was I just being lied to all this time? MASSADEATTHHHHHHHHHHHH ^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears. Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 635	Posted - 2015.03.09 22:50:30 - [983] - Quote Mike Azariah wrote: OK, I had to go back to the start to remember what this thread is about. Imagine my surprise when it wasn't interceptors. Oh, they were mentioned Quote: 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. So I am willing to see how it develops. Prom Fem could be right, could be wrong . . . not worth losing sleep over, either way. Quote: 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? I understand the worries but let's look at some other ideas along the way. Mins one about fuel to run the link, Making hit and run throughout a region problematic without logistical support. Or the more reasonable one about a proper fleet challenging another proper fleet. Of course if the goal is dominance of the grid then it is reasonable for the larger fleet to win, no? Even if one of the goals was to lessen the impact of N+1 Can interceptors be an irritant? Yes. Can they be chased off to irritate someone else? Yes If properly prepared can they be swatted? Probably. Why is nobody bringing up caps as a viable composition? How about Stealth Bombers? (I think they would be fairly good at it, especially if blops behind the lines of a larger organization.) It is hard to imagine this being playtested on Sisi because so much of it WILL be psyops. So we can theroycraft and posture all you want . . . it will be tested when the rubber hits the road. I agree that maybe one of the things that needs looking at is how the indices are done, so more organizations have a method of getting to the magic 40 number as part of their defense. yeeah, I am caught up . . . darn you, Potato for stealing my gimmick of thread stats. m stealth bombers would be fairly irritating but it's actually possible to catch them so they are fine caps would be very effective on defense but as an attacking force they would probably suffer pretty harshly from the 4x longer cycle time my favorite (read: wildest, least plausible) defense scenario is parking a single aeon on every cap point with a cyno fit in case the ***** hits the fan
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 15438	Posted - 2015.03.09 22:50:55 - [984] - Quote Acuma wrote: baltec1 wrote: Acuma wrote: Seems mostly that only the goonies are afraid of trollceptors.......even with their "superior numbers" and their "we'll burn null sec to the ground if this is allowed." Wonder why that is? Too much space? To many renters? Afraid of spread out fights instead of blobs? All it takes is a tanked out maller alt sitting on a structure......ya'll don't have alts? So were you also one of the people that defended tech moons when we said they were a terrible idea? So you like arguing with strawmen? Looks to me like the only rean most are supporting trollcepters is because goons are against them. Fact is that trollcepters will be the single most annoying thing to ever happen to sov space even more so than the POS grind we first had. Not only will you have to contend with the biggest abusers of game mechanics in EVE but also everyone else in null, all the lowsec corps, WH powers and a good number of highsec to boot. There is going to be thousands of the ***** things everywhere and thats before we get into the waking nightmare that would be the CFC on a war footing. Trollcepters dont get people fights, they only serve to sap the life from the game. Very few systems will even have 20 min timers let alone 40. For the love of god do not allow us such a tool because we will abuse it and make life for everyone else miserable. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship**
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 635	Posted - 2015.03.09 22:53:25 - [985] - Quote you can see a mirror of this posting style in the old 2012 era Faction Warfare posts where the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal repeatedly warned CCP that their LP formula was inherently flawed they didn't listen and the mechanic went in unmolested and, well, forex is pretty legendary now
Acuma Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic 6	Posted - 2015.03.09 22:53:38 - [986] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Acuma wrote: baltec1 wrote: Acuma wrote: Seems mostly that only the goonies are afraid of trollceptors.......even with their "superior numbers" and their "we'll burn null sec to the ground if this is allowed." Wonder why that is? Too much space? To many renters? Afraid of spread out fights instead of blobs? All it takes is a tanked out maller alt sitting on a structure......ya'll don't have alts? So were you also one of the people that defended tech moons when we said they were a terrible idea? So you like arguing with strawmen? Looks to me like the only rean most are supporting trollcepters is because goons are against them. Fact is that trollcepters will be the single most annoying thing to ever happen to sov space even more so than the POS grind we first had. Not only will you have to contend with the biggest abusers of game mechanics in EVE but also everyone else in null, all the lowsec corps, WH powers and a good number of highsec to boot. There is going to be thousands of the ******* things everywhere and thats before we get into the waking nightmare that would be the CFC on a war footing. Trollcepters dont get people fights, they only serve to sap the life from the game. Very few systems will even have 20 min timers let alone 40. For the love of god do not allow us such a tool because we will abuse it and make life for everyone else miserable. Sounds to me like you'll have to only be in space you can defend during your primetime.....and your timer speculation is just that, speculation. Even at the lowest timer, it will waste 10 minutes of your time for 3-4 of the defender.....in an UNUSED system lol.
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 635	Posted - 2015.03.09 22:56:17 - [987] - Quote Acuma wrote: in an UNUSED system lol deklein is the most-used 0.0 region in the game
M1k3y Koontz Aether Ventures Surely You're Joking 733	Posted - 2015.03.09 22:57:02 - [988] - Quote Mike Azariah wrote: Or the more reasonable one about a proper fleet challenging another proper fleet. Of course if the goal is dominance of the grid then it is reasonable for the larger fleet to win, no? Even if one of the goals was to lessen the impact of N+1 If the Entosis Link becomes an N+1 module nothing will change in nullsec. The largest blob will win, as it is now; but additionally the larger blob would always win, with no chance of success for the smaller group. Just brick tank a bunch of T1 ships (Mallers are cheap and tanky), and zerg the nodes. So no, definitely not an n+1 module. How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp.
Alp Khan GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 292	Posted - 2015.03.09 23:00:31 - [989] - Quote M1k3y Koontz wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: truly your eft warrioring has swept my legs out from under me this increasingly shorter procession of effective ranges is bound to slay me eventually i am continually wetting my pants in trepidation for your next post, most likely a blaster brutix You've yet to show why a sniper corm won't kill an Inty, thus you have no legs to stand on. All of your posts lack substance, so either you're trolling or intentionally spamming up the thread to hide the fact that the inties are in fact counterable. It' basic PVP, if someone is too far away, load longer range ammo. If someone is closer, load higher damage/better tracking. So tell me, how are these mythical trollceptors going to take over all of null if a 15m cormorant can kill them or drive them off? I hope you aren't pretending to be ignorant. Because this has been said many times before. It's not just that those things are almost impossible to catch and destroy in practice (your cormorant hypothesis is revealing of your continued ignorance of reality) it's also that they are cheap, easy to get into and does not really translate into a commitment into contesting sovereignty. It isn't that those won't end up dead in some cases, it's that those ships dying does not matter. They are dirt cheap. They are easy to obtain and sic upon a whole region. This is the problem. If you want to be able to contest, you should be committing in the real sense.
Eli Apol Pro Synergy 350	Posted - 2015.03.09 23:03:03 - [990] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Looks to me like the only rean most are supporting trollcepters is because goons are against them. Arguing against removing from the game when the argument for removing it revolves around spending upto 4x the time spent by a defender to 'troll' them does not mean we're doing it because grrr goons. Now if Goons had a reasonable proposition that doesn't a) have multiple counter tactics and b) ends up wasting more of the attackers time than the defenders? Then sure we'd agree. baltec1 wrote: Not only will you have to contend with the biggest abusers of game mechanics in EVE but also everyone else in null, all the lowsec corps, WH powers and a good number of highsec to boot Might be getting close to the truth here...I wonder what the percentage of cfc:anti-cfc works out as across the whole game? Probably less favourable than trying to compare your numbers to just one of the poor little guys. baltec1 wrote: Trollcepters dont get people fights, they only serve to sap the life from the game. Very few systems will even have 20 min timers let alone 40. For the love of god do not allow us such a tool because we will abuse it and make life for everyone else miserable. Nope they don't get fights - but they won't capture occupied sov either and are a complete time sink for the person trying to use them.

M1k3y Koontz Aether Ventures Surely You're Joking 733	Posted - 2015.03.09 23:03:38 - [991] - Quote Alp Khan wrote: M1k3y Koontz wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: truly your eft warrioring has swept my legs out from under me this increasingly shorter procession of effective ranges is bound to slay me eventually i am continually wetting my pants in trepidation for your next post, most likely a blaster brutix You've yet to show why a sniper corm won't kill an Inty, thus you have no legs to stand on. All of your posts lack substance, so either you're trolling or intentionally spamming up the thread to hide the fact that the inties are in fact counterable. It' basic PVP, if someone is too far away, load longer range ammo. If someone is closer, load higher damage/better tracking. So tell me, how are these mythical trollceptors going to take over all of null if a 15m cormorant can kill them or drive them off? I hope you aren't pretending to be ignorant. Because this has been said many times before. It's not just that those things are almost impossible to catch and destroy in practice (your cormorant hypothesis is revealing of your continued ignorance of reality) it's also that they are cheap, easy to get into and does not really translate into a commitment into contesting sovereignty. It isn't that those won't end up dead in some cases, it's that those ships dying does not matter. They are dirt cheap. They are easy to obtain and sic upon a whole region. This is the problem. If you want to be able to contest, you should be committing in the real sense. 100m is dirt cheap? Then how will making them a battlecruiser only mod, or something else like that as other have suggested, change anything? They'd go from 100m to 150m per ship, that's not significant. What would you do to prevent entosis link ships from being "cheap" and being able to drop on the whole region? I'm listening. Also, accusing someone of ignorance is unbecoming. It does nothing to reinforce your ideas. How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp.
GeeShizzle MacCloud 534	Posted - 2015.03.09 23:04:10 - [992] - 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.
Arthur Aihaken X A X 4105	Posted - 2015.03.09 23:07:12 - [993] - Quote baltec1 wrote: For the love of god do not allow us such a tool because we will abuse it and make life for everyone else miserable. I think if one were to take only one thing from this discussion, this would be it. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Alavaria Fera GoonWaffe 6595	Posted - 2015.03.09 23:07:26 - [994] - Quote GeeShizzle MacCloud wrote: 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. a ceptor is capable of denying you "effective military control of the grid" so where's the problem? ^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears. Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
Kaarous Aldurald Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE. 12092	Posted - 2015.03.09 23:08:07 - [995] - Quote Eli Apol wrote: Now if Goons had a reasonable proposition that doesn't a) have multiple counter tactics and b) ends up wasting more of the attackers time than the defenders? Then sure we'd agree. Ha ha, what? You're actually straight up admitting that you only want something that does not have counters. You know, by rejecting anything that would, and I ******* quote your very sentence, "have multiple counter tactics". So unless it's absurdly overpowered with no reasonable way for a defender to deal with it, you don't want it. Thanks for that, you just screwed your whole side in this argument. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs.
Alavaria Fera GoonWaffe 6595	Posted - 2015.03.09 23:08:21 - [996] - Quote Arthur Aihaken wrote: baltec1 wrote: For the love of god do not allow us such a tool because we will abuse it and make life for everyone else miserable. I think if one were to take only one thing out of the discussion, this would be it. It's a lie. We're afraid massadeath of moa will abuse it and take away our innocence as sov havers ^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears. Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
Querns GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 1445	Posted - 2015.03.09 23:08:42 - [997] - Quote Gonna quote myself here; please don't judge me too harshly. Querns wrote: 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. It looks like here on page 50 or 51 that this is exactly what is occurring GÇö-áthe conversation is completely stalled and impotent because no details were provided. This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
Eli Apol Pro Synergy 350	Posted - 2015.03.09 23:08:59 - [998] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Eli Apol wrote: Now if Goons had a reasonable proposition that doesn't a) have multiple counter tactics and b) ends up wasting more of the attackers time than the defenders? Then sure we'd agree. Ha ha, what? You're actually straight up admitting that you only want something that does not have counters. You know, by rejecting anything that would, and I ******* quote your very sentence, "have multiple counter tactics". So unless it's absurdly overpowered with no reasonable way for a defender to deal with it, you don't want it. Thanks for that, you just screwed your whole side in this argument. Sorry, grammar error, I'll fix that for you. edit: Fixed, please reabsorb, it was a convoluted sentence structure and I screwed up a double negative ^^
Alavaria Fera GoonWaffe 6595	Posted - 2015.03.09 23:09:43 - [999] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Eli Apol wrote: Now if Goons had a reasonable proposition that doesn't a) have multiple counter tactics and b) ends up wasting more of the attackers time than the defenders? Then sure we'd agree. Ha ha, what? You're actually straight up admitting that you only want something that does not have counters. You know, by rejecting anything that would, and I ******* quote your very sentence, "have multiple counter tactics". So unless it's absurdly overpowered with no reasonable way for a defender to deal with it, you don't want it. Thanks for that, you just screwed your whole side in this argument. Well yeah, thanks for reminding us the whole objective is to end our 0.0 dream massadeath say something, i can't believe you'd just give up on taking away our sov like that, be the hero we deserve and fight for the tools that will let you rip through the sovvvvvv ^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears. Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 650	Posted - 2015.03.09 23:10:07 - [1000] - Quote Alavaria Fera wrote: Arthur Aihaken wrote: baltec1 wrote: For the love of god do not allow us such a tool because we will abuse it and make life for everyone else miserable. I think if one were to take only one thing out of the discussion, this would be it. It's a lie. We're afraid massadeath of moa will abuse it and take away our innocence as sov havers his sov and optimisim: gone

Kaarous Aldurald Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE. 12092	Posted - 2015.03.09 23:10:40 - [1001] - Quote Eli Apol wrote: Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Eli Apol wrote: Now if Goons had a reasonable proposition that doesn't a) have multiple counter tactics and b) ends up wasting more of the attackers time than the defenders? Then sure we'd agree. Ha ha, what? You're actually straight up admitting that you only want something that does not have counters. You know, by rejecting anything that would, and I ******* quote your very sentence, "have multiple counter tactics". So unless it's absurdly overpowered with no reasonable way for a defender to deal with it, you don't want it. Thanks for that, you just screwed your whole side in this argument. Sorry, grammar error, I'll fix that for you. Sure. I believe the heck out of that. I believe it so hard, Bill Clinton really didn't have sex with that woman. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs.
Alavaria Fera GoonWaffe 6595	Posted - 2015.03.09 23:10:55 - [1002] - Quote Querns wrote: Gonna quote myself here; please don't judge me too harshly. Querns wrote: 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. It looks like here on page 50 or 51 that this is exactly what is occurring GÇö-áthe conversation is completely stalled and impotent because no details were provided. Well yeah but gotta stay the course and just ram it all the way in all the way.... into our sov... ^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears. Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
M1k3y Koontz Aether Ventures Surely You're Joking 734	Posted - 2015.03.09 23:11:22 - [1003] - Quote Alavaria Fera wrote: Arthur Aihaken wrote: baltec1 wrote: For the love of god do not allow us such a tool because we will abuse it and make life for everyone else miserable. I think if one were to take only one thing out of the discussion, this would be it. It's a lie. We're afraid massadeath of moa will abuse it and take away our innocence as sov havers This kind of posting is why CCP don't actually read the threads. How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp.
Tycho VI Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective 9	Posted - 2015.03.09 23:12:05 - [1004] - Quote Arthur Aihaken wrote: baltec1 wrote: For the love of god do not allow us such a tool because we will abuse it and make life for everyone else miserable. I think if one were to take only one thing from this discussion, this would be it.
Eli Apol Pro Synergy 350	Posted - 2015.03.09 23:12:16 - [1005] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Eli Apol wrote: Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Eli Apol wrote: Now if Goons had a reasonable proposition that doesn't a) have multiple counter tactics and b) ends up wasting more of the attackers time than the defenders? Then sure we'd agree. Ha ha, what? You're actually straight up admitting that you only want something that does not have counters. You know, by rejecting anything that would, and I ******* quote your very sentence, "have multiple counter tactics". So unless it's absurdly overpowered with no reasonable way for a defender to deal with it, you don't want it. Thanks for that, you just screwed your whole side in this argument. Sorry, grammar error, I'll fix that for you. Sure. I believe the heck out of that. I believe it so hard, Bill Clinton really didn't have sex with that woman. Really, you think I'd say something nonsensical (that it doesn't have valid counters??? have you read the last 50 pages?) And are claiming a slight typo as backing up of your argument. Smacks of desperation.
Alp Khan GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 292	Posted - 2015.03.09 23:14:41 - [1006] - Quote M1k3y Koontz wrote: Alp Khan wrote: M1k3y Koontz wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: truly your eft warrioring has swept my legs out from under me this increasingly shorter procession of effective ranges is bound to slay me eventually i am continually wetting my pants in trepidation for your next post, most likely a blaster brutix You've yet to show why a sniper corm won't kill an Inty, thus you have no legs to stand on. All of your posts lack substance, so either you're trolling or intentionally spamming up the thread to hide the fact that the inties are in fact counterable. It' basic PVP, if someone is too far away, load longer range ammo. If someone is closer, load higher damage/better tracking. So tell me, how are these mythical trollceptors going to take over all of null if a 15m cormorant can kill them or drive them off? I hope you aren't pretending to be ignorant. Because this has been said many times before. It's not just that those things are almost impossible to catch and destroy in practice (your cormorant hypothesis is revealing of your continued ignorance of reality) it's also that they are cheap, easy to get into and does not really translate into a commitment into contesting sovereignty. It isn't that those won't end up dead in some cases, it's that those ships dying does not matter. They are dirt cheap. They are easy to obtain and sic upon a whole region. This is the problem. If you want to be able to contest, you should be committing in the real sense. 100m is dirt cheap? Then how will making them a battlecruiser only mod, or something else like that as other have suggested, change anything? They'd go from 100m to 150m per ship, that's not significant. What would you do to prevent entosis link ships from being "cheap" and being able to drop on the whole region? I'm listening. Also, accusing someone of ignorance is unbecoming. It does nothing to reinforce your ideas. It's not just the cost, cost is only one of the factors. Besides, yes, 100M is cheap. I'd like to recommend you to look at typical sovereign null fleet compositions that are current, you won't see many 100M ships there. It's speed+mobility+low cost and high availability+evasiveness and almost constant invincibility for small, agile hulls. Basically, an interceptor becomes the hull of choice with following highlights a) Evade any gate camp with sub 2.0s align time b) Evade any bubble c) Easy to train for and easy to acquire, extremely low cost d) Can be easily acquired in massive quantities and can be sent to troll entire regions in very little time d) Can disengage safely from almost all possible types of on-grid encounters through overwhelming speed, even during entosis module phase And people are pushing for a hull like this to be able to contest sovereignty and space assets? As General McAullife once said, "Nuts!"
Kaarous Aldurald Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE. 12092	Posted - 2015.03.09 23:15:00 - [1007] - Quote Eli Apol wrote: edit: Fixed, please reabsorb, it was a convoluted sentence structure and I screwed up a double negative ^^ Yeah, see, that doesn't change the underlying message. You're arguing to get something overpowered, and outright stating that getting something not overpowered isn't acceptable. That says way more about your side in the argument than you realize. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs.
Alavaria Fera GoonWaffe 6595	Posted - 2015.03.09 23:15:12 - [1008] - Quote M1k3y Koontz wrote: Alavaria Fera wrote: Arthur Aihaken wrote: baltec1 wrote: For the love of god do not allow us such a tool because we will abuse it and make life for everyone else miserable. I think if one were to take only one thing out of the discussion, this would be it. It's a lie. We're afraid massadeath of moa will abuse it and take away our innocence as sov havers This kind of posting is why CCP don't actually read the threads. I'm out, if anything changes to the mechanics it'll be posted on TMC or EN24, so I'm not wasting any more of my time on this rabble. But it's true. Look at all the posts pointing out how scared we must be. Well ok, it might take more than just massadeath, he probably has to get some people from moa to do it, and maybe even a third party. But this is well within the reasonable range of possibilities. Thus, we are scared. ^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears. Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
Eli Apol Pro Synergy 350	Posted - 2015.03.09 23:16:04 - [1009] - Quote Alp Khan wrote: a) Evade any gate camp with sub 2.0s align time b) Evade any bubble c) Easy to train for and easy to acquire, extremely low cost d) Can be easily acquired in massive quantities and can be sent to troll entire regions in very little time d) Can disengage safely from almost all possible types of on-grid encounters through overwhelming speed, even during entosis module phase And people are pushing for a hull like this to be able to contest sovereignty? As General McAullife once said, "Nuts!" e) can easily be countered by one person in a frigate that can be flown from day 1. Doesn't even need frigate V.
Alavaria Fera GoonWaffe 6596	Posted - 2015.03.09 23:16:10 - [1010] - Quote Alp Khan wrote: It's not just the cost, cost is only one of the factors. Besides, yes, 100M is cheap. I'd like to recommend you to look at typical sovereign null fleet compositions that are current, you won't see many 100M ships there. It's speed+mobility+low cost and high availability+evasiveness and almost constant invincibility for small, agile hulls. Basically, an interceptor becomes the hull of choice with following highlights a) Evade any gate camp with sub 2.0s align time b) Evade any bubble c) Easy to train for and easy to acquire, extremely low cost d) Can be easily acquired in massive quantities and can be sent to troll entire regions in very little time d) Can disengage safely from almost all possible types of on-grid encounters through overwhelming speed, even during entosis module phase And people are pushing for a hull like this to be able to contest sovereignty and space assets? As General McAullife once said, "Nuts!" These are the heroes we deserve, who will finally take away our 0.0 dream and drag us into a new world. ^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears. Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.

Kaarous Aldurald Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE. 12095	Posted - 2015.03.09 23:17:00 - [1011] - Quote Eli Apol wrote: Alp Khan wrote: a) Evade any gate camp with sub 2.0s align time b) Evade any bubble c) Easy to train for and easy to acquire, extremely low cost d) Can be easily acquired in massive quantities and can be sent to troll entire regions in very little time d) Can disengage safely from almost all possible types of on-grid encounters through overwhelming speed, even during entosis module phase And people are pushing for a hull like this to be able to contest sovereignty? As General McAullife once said, "Nuts!" e) can easily be countered by one person in a frigate that can be flown from day 1. Doesn't even need frigate V. If by "countered" you mean "both sit on the button until one guy gets bored". Fozzie's very first objective, broken. Frigates must not have access to this module. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs.
GeeShizzle MacCloud 536	Posted - 2015.03.09 23:17:57 - [1012] - 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.
Eli Apol Pro Synergy 350	Posted - 2015.03.09 23:18:22 - [1013] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Eli Apol wrote: Alp Khan wrote: a) Evade any gate camp with sub 2.0s align time b) Evade any bubble c) Easy to train for and easy to acquire, extremely low cost d) Can be easily acquired in massive quantities and can be sent to troll entire regions in very little time d) Can disengage safely from almost all possible types of on-grid encounters through overwhelming speed, even during entosis module phase And people are pushing for a hull like this to be able to contest sovereignty? As General McAullife once said, "Nuts!" e) can easily be countered by one person in a frigate that can be flown from day 1. Doesn't even need frigate V. If by "countered" you mean "both sit on the button until one guy gets bored". Fozzie's very first objective, broken. Frigates must not have access to this module. Forcing a stalemate means the attacker has failed in their objective. Sounds like a counter to me. Do you like chess?
KIller Wabbit The Scope Gallente Federation 913	Posted - 2015.03.09 23:18:22 - [1014] - Quote Promiscuous Female wrote: also fyi the timer can only be 40 minutes if the system has an industrial index of 5 there are no regions in the game with an average industrial index above one except providence That is the choice of the holders. Skewed focus can yield sub-optimum conditions.
Arthur Aihaken X A X 4105	Posted - 2015.03.09 23:18:43 - [1015] - Quote If there's a "Sov Mechanics" forum at FanFest it's going to be standing room only... I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Alavaria Fera GoonWaffe 6596	Posted - 2015.03.09 23:19:49 - [1016] - Quote 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. Er, hmm. Not sure how I should handle this. Let me disengage and move to the next Command Post ^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears. Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 650	Posted - 2015.03.09 23:20:22 - [1017] - Quote KIller Wabbit wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: also fyi the timer can only be 40 minutes if the system has an industrial index of 5 there are no regions in the game with an average industrial index above one except providence That is the choice of the holders. Skewed focus can yield sub-optimum conditions. so you would say that our focus is "not skewed" when sov havers force their line members to excavate massive piles of ore are you aware how much mining need occur before that particular index goes up
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 650	Posted - 2015.03.09 23:21:10 - [1018] - Quote 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
Lienzo Amanuensis 46	Posted - 2015.03.09 23:21:10 - [1019] - Quote It will be interesting to see what the change of direction will be if half the stations are freeports by December.
Alp Khan GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 293	Posted - 2015.03.09 23:22:23 - [1020] - Quote CCP Fozzie wrote: As much as possible, the Entosis Link capture progress should reflect which group has effective military control of the grid. ... And how would you define effective military control, Fozzie? It seems to me that you are just throwing around buzzwords to be able to curtail massively negative player reaction against a half-baked proposal that we would have hoped to carry substance, detail, consistency and an understanding of life and realities of sovereign null after many years of waiting. For the sake of this game, I'm hoping to be proven wrong here. But remembering how you skirted around the statistics to cover your back in the 'Where we stand' devblog, just to be able to claim some sort of partial success, I'm afraid that I will end up being disappointed.

Alavaria Fera GoonWaffe 6596	Posted - 2015.03.09 23:23:15 - [1021] - Quote Lienzo wrote: It will be interesting to see what the change of direction will be if half the stations are freeports by December. Unlikely, as if anything random people will poke it to grab a station despite not having any intention to use, hold or defend it. In short, probably it will look like a great success with tons of little "sovtroll" sovholders who don't use the sov or anything or derive much value out of it at all. Op success! ^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears. Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
Pooptasticize Imperial Academy Amarr Empire 2	Posted - 2015.03.09 23:25:01 - [1022] - Quote The troll-ceptor for DEFENSE is much more onerous than the one for offense. You're a small corp. You bring 20 dudes into a system to take a station. The other side brings 20 dudes. You kill them all (since you have ishtars). You start sov-lasering the station. They bring out a single intercepter you will never be able to catch that also activates it's SOV laser. Two hours later you go home empty handed, even though you controlled the grid.
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 15445	Posted - 2015.03.09 23:26:32 - [1023] - Quote Acuma wrote: baltec1 wrote: Acuma wrote: baltec1 wrote: Acuma wrote: Seems mostly that only the goonies are afraid of trollceptors.......even with their "superior numbers" and their "we'll burn null sec to the ground if this is allowed." Wonder why that is? Too much space? To many renters? Afraid of spread out fights instead of blobs? All it takes is a tanked out maller alt sitting on a structure......ya'll don't have alts? So were you also one of the people that defended tech moons when we said they were a terrible idea? So you like arguing with strawmen? Looks to me like the only rean most are supporting trollcepters is because goons are against them. Fact is that trollcepters will be the single most annoying thing to ever happen to sov space even more so than the POS grind we first had. Not only will you have to contend with the biggest abusers of game mechanics in EVE but also everyone else in null, all the lowsec corps, WH powers and a good number of highsec to boot. There is going to be thousands of the ***** things everywhere and thats before we get into the waking nightmare that would be the CFC on a war footing. Trollcepters dont get people fights, they only serve to sap the life from the game. Very few systems will even have 20 min timers let alone 40. For the love of god do not allow us such a tool because we will abuse it and make life for everyone else miserable. Sounds to me like you'll have to only be in space you can defend during your primetime.....and your timer speculation is just that, speculation. Even at the lowest timer, it will waste 10 minutes of your time for 3-4 of the defender.....in an UNUSED system lol. Sounds like you plan on being bored out your mind instead of bringing a force to actually trigger the RF. If you had paid attention at any point in the last 5 years you would know that we cannot get bored. You should also take the time tolook up the state of most sov out there as the vast bulk is a lot emptier than ours. 10 minutes give you next to no time to respond. Six months of having to deal with nothing but cepters that you cannot kill will drain the willpower of everyone but the largest organisations. Are you going to attend 4 hour long defence ops that get you nothing? How about year after year of nothing but uncatchable cepters? Its a terrible thing that needs to die before it ever gets started. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship**
GeeShizzle MacCloud 537	Posted - 2015.03.09 23:26:47 - [1024] - 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 fk 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 fk 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.
Alavaria Fera GoonWaffe 6596	Posted - 2015.03.09 23:28:14 - [1025] - Quote Pooptasticize wrote: The troll-ceptor for DEFENSE is much more onerous than the one for offense. You're a small corp. You bring 20 dudes into a system to take a station. You start sov-lasering the station. They bring out a single intercepter you will never be able to catch that also activates it's SOV laser. Two hours later you go home empty handed, even though you controlled the grid. As long as you trolled the guys holding the sov, isn't it success? I begin to wonder about the plans people are making to take our sov. Hopefully they have a plan to deal with ceptors like the ones they will use. ^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears. Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
Eli Apol Pro Synergy 351	Posted - 2015.03.09 23:30:25 - [1026] - Quote Alavaria Fera wrote: Pooptasticize wrote: The troll-ceptor for DEFENSE is much more onerous than the one for offense. You're a small corp. You bring 20 dudes into a system to take a station. You start sov-lasering the station. They bring out a single intercepter you will never be able to catch that also activates it's SOV laser. Two hours later you go home empty handed, even though you controlled the grid. As long as you trolled the guys holding the sov, isn't it success? I begin to wonder about the plans people are making to take our sov. Hopefully they have a plan to deal with ceptors like the ones they will use. Mobile depot and 20 sensor damps? Even unbonused it'll do all thats needed to make the ceptor do something silly before it can complete its first cycle
Alavaria Fera GoonWaffe 6596	Posted - 2015.03.09 23:31:10 - [1027] - Quote I think we need to move our mindset to a post-sov world, where you have to extract what you can get with only a bare minimum of sov (otherwise you will pay very high costs in trolling, no matter what) ^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears. Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
Tycho VI Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective 9	Posted - 2015.03.09 23:32:06 - [1028] - Quote Alavaria Fera wrote: Pooptasticize wrote: The troll-ceptor for DEFENSE is much more onerous than the one for offense. You're a small corp. You bring 20 dudes into a system to take a station. You start sov-lasering the station. They bring out a single intercepter you will never be able to catch that also activates it's SOV laser. Two hours later you go home empty handed, even though you controlled the grid. As long as you trolled the guys holding the sov, isn't it success? I begin to wonder about the plans people are making to take our sov. Hopefully they have a plan to deal with ceptors like the ones they will use. trolled like 3 guys watching the intel channel
Alp Khan GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 294	Posted - 2015.03.09 23:33:39 - [1029] - Quote GeeShizzle MacCloud wrote: 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 fk 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 fk 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. You are wrong. Even so, I appreciate your candor. However, this isn't Zulu and you shouldn't act like it is.
Alavaria Fera GoonWaffe 6596	Posted - 2015.03.09 23:33:53 - [1030] - Quote Tycho VI wrote: Alavaria Fera wrote: Pooptasticize wrote: The troll-ceptor for DEFENSE is much more onerous than the one for offense. You're a small corp. You bring 20 dudes into a system to take a station. You start sov-lasering the station. They bring out a single intercepter you will never be able to catch that also activates it's SOV laser. Two hours later you go home empty handed, even though you controlled the grid. As long as you trolled the guys holding the sov, isn't it success? I begin to wonder about the plans people are making to take our sov. Hopefully they have a plan to deal with ceptors like the ones they will use. trolled like 3 guys watching the intel channel That's not good then, how will moa poke us until we give up all our sov out of frustration ^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears. Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.

Eli Apol Pro Synergy 351	Posted - 2015.03.09 23:34:39 - [1031] - Quote Alp Khan wrote: You are wrong. Even so, I appreciate your candor. However, this isn't Zulu. Goons, fousands of them, don't shoot til you see the whites of their lies?
Dras Malar Cloak and Daggers Fidelas Constans 7	Posted - 2015.03.09 23:35:29 - [1032] - Quote I really do not understand the point of the Entosis module. Why should sov be decided by a new gimmicky high slot module? If you want effective military control to decide sov battles, why not just leave it up to structure hitpoints and remove all the convoluted boring elements that are in sov right now? If you have effective military control, you shoot the thing, then put up your own thing. If you don't, you lose the battle and the other guy blows up your ship. Why do you want to turn nullsec into some ridiculous whack-a-mole game crossed with some multi-system King of the Hill nonsense? Do you not want anyone to live in nullsec?
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 15445	Posted - 2015.03.09 23:36:30 - [1033] - Quote KIller Wabbit wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: also fyi the timer can only be 40 minutes if the system has an industrial index of 5 there are no regions in the game with an average industrial index above one eidence That is the choice of the holders. Skewed focus can yield sub-optimum conditions. Some systems literally cannot gain military index V and next to no system have any mining index due to it simply not being worth mining. Most systems also dont have great industry because they either dont have an outpost or they dont have any need for that much industry in a back end system. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
Alp Khan GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 294	Posted - 2015.03.09 23:36:54 - [1034] - Quote Eli Apol wrote: Alp Khan wrote: You are wrong. Even so, I appreciate your candor. However, this isn't Zulu. Goons, fousands of them, don't shoot til you see the whites of their lies? Coming from a high-sec salvager, who claimed to be an alt of a sovereign null resident when called out for commenting on a type of environment has no prior experience with, your sentence is almost entertaining. Almost.
Acuma Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic 11	Posted - 2015.03.09 23:38:09 - [1035] - Quote Promiscuous Female wrote: Acuma wrote: in an UNUSED system lol deklein is the most-used 0.0 region in the game Then you have nothing to worry about from a lone "trollceptor."
Veskrashen Justified Chaos Spaceship Bebop 760	Posted - 2015.03.09 23:38:54 - [1036] - Quote Promiscuous Female wrote: Veskrashen wrote: Nope, not really. Not when your signature radius and speed aren't significant enough to save you from being murderfied by anyone with half a brain. what's tracking precious What's a 10mn MWD Svipul, Precious? A single one could clear you off all the objectives in a system in under a minute. If you stay, you die. If you don't, he wins.[/quote] you live in a crazy world where oversized mwds allow you to turn at all[/quote] Don't really matter as long as I can get within point/web range, does it? Of course, if you really think that's an issue, you can just run the 10mn MWD Beam Confessor instead. A touch slower, sure, but can kill your Trollceptor in about 15 seconds from 50km out. Don't have to worry about turning if all I have to do is close within 50km, now do I? But hey. Just keep on dreaming of a world where your Trollceptors will accomplish anything at all in defended system. Hell, with 10mn MWD T3 Dessies, a defender would only need to bring about 15-20 of them to render your full wing of unstoppable, unkillable, instant RFing Trollceptors... completely Ir-Revenant. We Gallente have a saying: "CCP created the Gallente Militia to train the Fighters..."
Aurumfault Shiptoaster Imperial Academy Amarr Empire 3	Posted - 2015.03.09 23:39:18 - [1037] - Quote KIller Wabbit wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: also fyi the timer can only be 40 minutes if the system has an industrial index of 5 there are no regions in the game with an average industrial index above one except providence That is the choice of the holders. Skewed focus can yield sub-optimum conditions. A choice driven by the industrial index taking far more pilot-hours to increase and requiring an activity that few people find satisfying and offers lower rewards.
Alavaria Fera GoonWaffe 6596	Posted - 2015.03.09 23:39:23 - [1038] - Quote Dras Malar wrote: I really do not understand the point of the Entosis module. Why should sov be decided by a new gimmicky high slot module? If you want effective military control to decide sov battles, why not just leave it up to structure hitpoints and remove all the convoluted boring elements that are in sov right now? If you have effective military control, you shoot the thing, then put up your own thing. If you don't, you lose the battle and the other guy blows up your ship. Why do you want to turn nullsec into some ridiculous whack-a-mole game crossed with some multi-system King of the Hill nonsense? Do you not want anyone to live in nullsec? Probably because "ceptor with laser" is easier than "you have to fight a blob of evil blobbers" Can't shake up null if the likes of moa can't send single ceptors out. As it is, trying to harass sov right now still takes a lot of structure shooters even if you're out in nadot land... it's nearly impossible in Deklein now. At least you can get some interceptors in. ^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears. Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
Tycho VI Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective 9	Posted - 2015.03.09 23:39:53 - [1039] - Quote What if it was made so that when using the Entosis, your ship can not move at all?
Veskrashen Justified Chaos Spaceship Bebop 760	Posted - 2015.03.09 23:39:57 - [1040] - Quote Tycho VI wrote: And then you start using Trollvipuls :P Trollvipuls don't insta-align and can't ignore bubbles. Therefore according to Gewns they're absolutely in no way shape or form imbalanced. We Gallente have a saying: "CCP created the Gallente Militia to train the Fighters..."

Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 650	Posted - 2015.03.09 23:40:35 - [1041] - Quote Acuma wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: Acuma wrote: in an UNUSED system lol deklein is the most-used 0.0 region in the game Then you have nothing to worry about from a lone "trollceptor." sure we do if we don't send disproportionately increasing numbers of dudes to counter him, he generates final timers for large numbers of sov structures like i said before, the fact that we are capable of doing this is immaterial to how awful it is when there is no chance to kill the interceptor
Alavaria Fera GoonWaffe 6596	Posted - 2015.03.09 23:40:59 - [1042] - Quote Acuma wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: Acuma wrote: in an UNUSED system lol deklein is the most-used 0.0 region in the game Then you have nothing to worry about from a lone "trollceptor." Heh heh... then is all our worrying actually just intended to entice a response or are we fearing for our 0.0 dream I have no idea myself ^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears. Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
Acuma Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic 11	Posted - 2015.03.09 23:41:39 - [1043] - Quote Veskrashen wrote: Tycho VI wrote: And then you start using Trollvipuls :P Trollvipuls don't insta-align and can't ignore bubbles. Therefore according to Gewns they're absolutely in no way shape or form imbalanced. Anything that can get past their gatecamps is UnbalancedGäó
Alavaria Fera GoonWaffe 6596	Posted - 2015.03.09 23:43:04 - [1044] - Quote Veskrashen wrote: Tycho VI wrote: And then you start using Trollvipuls :P Trollvipuls don't insta-align and can't ignore bubbles. Therefore according to Gewns they're absolutely in no way shape or form imbalanced. Ahh, bubbles. Hopefully the sovtrolls from lowsec are sufficiently acquainted with these interdiction methods. Well, if not then they become "content" ^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears. Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 650	Posted - 2015.03.09 23:43:45 - [1045] - Quote Acuma wrote: Veskrashen wrote: Tycho VI wrote: And then you start using Trollvipuls :P Trollvipuls don't insta-align and can't ignore bubbles. Therefore according to Gewns they're absolutely in no way shape or form imbalanced. Anything that can get past their gatecamps is UnbalancedGäó how dare we counter attempts at taking our sov with pvp
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 15445	Posted - 2015.03.09 23:44:55 - [1046] - Quote Tycho VI wrote: What if it was made so that when using the Entosis, your ship can not move at all? Blap dreads. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
Eli Apol Pro Synergy 351	Posted - 2015.03.09 23:45:59 - [1047] - Quote Alp Khan wrote: who claimed to be an alt of a sovereign null resident citation please? Oh right, I never said such a thing. Nice point though, really helped the discussion.
Alavaria Fera GoonWaffe 6596	Posted - 2015.03.09 23:46:00 - [1048] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Tycho VI wrote: What if it was made so that when using the Entosis, your ship can not move at all? Blap dreads. If someone has a blap dread on field, clearly the one it is shooting does not have "effective military control of the grid" since.. well there's a hostile dread. So it's fine? ^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears. Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 650	Posted - 2015.03.09 23:47:41 - [1049] - Quote Eli Apol wrote: Alp Khan wrote: who claimed to be an alt of a sovereign null resident citation please? Oh right, I never said such a thing. Nice point though, really helped the discussion. so you are asserting that you don't actually live in nullsec then at least Lanngisi III - Moon 2 - Sisters of Eve Bureau doesn't appear to be nullsec
Acuma Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic 11	Posted - 2015.03.09 23:48:11 - [1050] - Quote Promiscuous Female wrote: Acuma wrote: Veskrashen wrote: Tycho VI wrote: And then you start using Trollvipuls :P Trollvipuls don't insta-align and can't ignore bubbles. Therefore according to Gewns they're absolutely in no way shape or form imbalanced. Anything that can get past their gatecamps is UnbalancedGäó how dare we counter attempts at taking our sov with pvp How dare you be asked to undock a single frigate to protect your sov........HAHAHHAHAHA

Tycho VI Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective 9	Posted - 2015.03.09 23:48:28 - [1051] - Quote You gotta use some kind of imagination here....Has anyone considered how ridiculous that shooting a laser from a moving ship at a Station, TCU, SBU could somehow force all the workers inside the structure to be forced to end up changing to their side, like a mind control beam really? Lean towards the mechanic that the Entosis is actually a retractable bridge rather then a laser that serves the purpose of moving troops from said ship to said structure for active combat (the first timer), to reinforcing their forces for victory (second timer) etc.... SOMETHING LIKE THAT FOR LORE AND FUTURE UPDATES! Use a laser as the graphic placeholder forever if you have to. You cant fly around in orbit of a structure without ripping this bridge apart and putting all the troops in a zero gravity environment causing death. Or breaking the laser's concentration...etc Suggestion: You could implement some completely new code so that the Entosis mod's link will be broken once the user's angle becomes greater then a specific number (you can still move around what you are using it on, but you cant go from bottom to top of the structure, or orbit it 360 degrees around without breaking the link) shouldn't be too hard to create angular variables and limits since it is all a grid anyway and the structure serves as a center point
Alavaria Fera GoonWaffe 6596	Posted - 2015.03.09 23:49:52 - [1052] - Quote Tycho VI wrote: You gotta use some kind of imagination here....Has anyone considered how ridiculous that shooting a laser from a moving ship at a Station, TCU, SBU could somehow force all the workers inside the structure to be forced to end up changing to their side, like a mind control beam really? Lean towards the mechanic that the Entosis is actually a retractable bridge rather then a laser that serves the purpose of moving troops from said ship to said structure for active combat (the first timer), to reinforcing their forces for victory (second timer) etc.... SOMETHING LIKE THAT FOR LORE AND FUTURE UPDATES! Use a laser as the graphic placeholder forever if you have to. You cant fly around in orbit of a structure without ripping this bridge apart and putting all the troops in a zero gravity environment causing death. Or breaking the laser's concentration...etc Suggestion: You could implement some completely new code so that the Entosis mod's link will be broken once the user's angle becomes greater then a specific number (you can still move around what you are using it on, but you cant go from bottom to top of the structure, or orbit it 360 degrees around without breaking the link) I would have thought it was like a reverse mining laser. ^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears. Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 650	Posted - 2015.03.09 23:50:07 - [1053] - Quote Acuma wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: Acuma wrote: Veskrashen wrote: Tycho VI wrote: And then you start using Trollvipuls :P Trollvipuls don't insta-align and can't ignore bubbles. Therefore according to Gewns they're absolutely in no way shape or form imbalanced. Anything that can get past their gatecamps is UnbalancedGäó how dare we counter attempts at taking our sov with pvp How dare you be asked to undock a single frigate to protect your sov........HAHAHHAHAHA a single frigate doesn't stop the sov threats, just postpones them a little hi this is the entosis link thread, you appear to be new here
Acuma Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic 11	Posted - 2015.03.09 23:51:46 - [1054] - Quote [quote=Tycho VI] Lean towards the mechanic that the Entosis is actually a retractable bridge rather then a laser that serves the purpose of moving troops from said ship to said structure for active combat (the first timer), to reinforcing their forces for victory (second timer) etc.... SOMETHING LIKE THAT FOR LORE AND FUTURE UPDATES! Use a laser as the graphic placeholder forever if you have to. {/quote] I actually like the idea of some kind of boarding ship. Warp in to 0, launch troops on the structure, or something like that. This entosis module is unrealistic.
Veskrashen Justified Chaos Spaceship Bebop 760	Posted - 2015.03.09 23:52:14 - [1055] - Quote Mike Azariah wrote: Why is nobody bringing up caps as a viable composition? How about Stealth Bombers? Caps aren't an issue so much for Entosis links. They can't receive reps while the link is active, so have to rely on local reps. They'd have to be on field for about 30 minutes to complete an RF cycle - likely quite a bit more, given CCP's already mentioned they're upping the cycle time / progress for caps - which gives a defender more than enough time to scramble stuff to murderfy it in proper fashion. A few neut Geddons and a long point would be more than enough to see off a solo capital. Bringing larger fleets could potentially be an issue, but even then they're going to take a LOT longer to RF something than a blob of Supercarriers currently can. If they're deployed to guard subcap Entosis boats, those will simply be blapped off the field by any competent defender - they can't receive reps, after all. Sure, you could potentially see them supporting Marauders, but even then those can only get about 8-10k DPS local tank, and would be really vulnerable to Focused Void Bombs and the like... at which point they get blapped off the field, again. And of course a defender can bring fast, small, hard to hit Trollceptors to delay capture indefinitely, unless the cap fleet brings a subcap support fleet. Which could then be murdered to death by savvy defenders, followed by more Trollceptoring. As far as Stealth Bombers go - or any CovOps capable ship, for that matter - they'd be powerful, sure. But they don't present the same problem of high speed evasion that a Trollceptor does, nor are they bubble immune. So long as they can't instantly cloak while the Entosis link is active, they're just as vulnerable to interception as anything else. Granted, a cloaky T3 or cloaky Stratios can be difficult to deal with solo, but not so difficult to pin down long enough to summon help. Not to mention being a much shinier kill. In all, I feel that low fitting requirements mean that Sov Harassment / Defense is open to all ship classes and all pilot experience levels - right in line with the design goals. They do reward more mobile fleets, as well as fleets well rounded enough to take on varied counter fleets. We Gallente have a saying: "CCP created the Gallente Militia to train the Fighters..."
Tycho VI Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective 9	Posted - 2015.03.09 23:52:31 - [1056] - Quote Alavaria Fera wrote: Tycho VI wrote: You gotta use some kind of imagination here....Has anyone considered how ridiculous that shooting a laser from a moving ship at a Station, TCU, SBU could somehow force all the workers inside the structure to be forced to end up changing to their side, like a mind control beam really? Lean towards the mechanic that the Entosis is actually a retractable bridge rather then a laser that serves the purpose of moving troops from said ship to said structure for active combat (the first timer), to reinforcing their forces for victory (second timer) etc.... SOMETHING LIKE THAT FOR LORE AND FUTURE UPDATES! Use a laser as the graphic placeholder forever if you have to. You cant fly around in orbit of a structure without ripping this bridge apart and putting all the troops in a zero gravity environment causing death. Or breaking the laser's concentration...etc Suggestion: You could implement some completely new code so that the Entosis mod's link will be broken once the user's angle becomes greater then a specific number (you can still move around what you are using it on, but you cant go from bottom to top of the structure, or orbit it 360 degrees around without breaking the link) I would have thought it was like a reverse mining laser. Well, IF you start the link from the twelve o'clock region of the structure. You can not fly down to the 3 o'clock, 6 o'clock, 12 o'clock regions or the link breaks. that kind of code is possible with this grid system in eve...
Eli Apol Pro Synergy 351	Posted - 2015.03.09 23:52:31 - [1057] - Quote Promiscuous Female wrote: Eli Apol wrote: Alp Khan wrote: who claimed to be an alt of a sovereign null resident citation please? Oh right, I never said such a thing. Nice point though, really helped the discussion. so you are asserting that you don't actually live in nullsec then at least Lanngisi III - Moon 2 - Sisters of Eve Bureau doesn't appear to be nullsec And how long has this alt been logged in for in the last week? I think I logged for maybe 10minutes the other day to do a skill queue swap whilst multi char training on it? I'm sure one of you must have been noting this since you seem determined to find out who I am and what I do rather than dealing with my arguments. And sorry, I should have been clearer. I neither confirmed nor denied the where-abouts of my mains. Since my primary activity has been shooting down the issue of how to deal with an interceptor or not with a module that doesn't yet exist, I don't think it really matters all that much. I did confirm that I was in Deklein recently on at least one of my toons for long enough to appear on your intel channels if that's any help?
Tycho VI Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective 9	Posted - 2015.03.09 23:53:43 - [1058] - Quote Tycho VI wrote: Alavaria Fera wrote: Tycho VI wrote: You gotta use some kind of imagination here....Has anyone considered how ridiculous that shooting a laser from a moving ship at a Station, TCU, SBU could somehow force all the workers inside the structure to be forced to end up changing to their side, like a mind control beam really? Lean towards the mechanic that the Entosis is actually a retractable bridge rather then a laser that serves the purpose of moving troops from said ship to said structure for active combat (the first timer), to reinforcing their forces for victory (second timer) etc.... SOMETHING LIKE THAT FOR LORE AND FUTURE UPDATES! Use a laser as the graphic placeholder forever if you have to. You cant fly around in orbit of a structure without ripping this bridge apart and putting all the troops in a zero gravity environment causing death. Or breaking the laser's concentration...etc Suggestion: You could implement some completely new code so that the Entosis mod's link will be broken once the user's angle becomes greater then a specific number (you can still move around what you are using it on, but you cant go from bottom to top of the structure, or orbit it 360 degrees around without breaking the link) I would have thought it was like a reverse mining laser. Well, IF you start the link from the twelve o'clock region of the structure. You can not fly down to the 3 o'clock, 6 o'clock, 9 o'clock regions or the link breaks. that kind of code is possible with this grid system in eve... You have to stay in a position relative to where you started the link to.
Alavaria Fera GoonWaffe 6596	Posted - 2015.03.09 23:53:43 - [1059] - Quote Acuma wrote: [quote=Tycho VI] Lean towards the mechanic that the Entosis is actually a retractable bridge rather then a laser that serves the purpose of moving troops from said ship to said structure for active combat (the first timer), to reinforcing their forces for victory (second timer) etc.... SOMETHING LIKE THAT FOR LORE AND FUTURE UPDATES! Use a laser as the graphic placeholder forever if you have to. {/quote] I actually like the idea of some kind of boarding ship. Warp in to 0, launch troops on the structure, or something like that. This entosis module is unrealistic. Remember when DUST was supposed to be linked to sov? Well it got laser focus headshot, but perhaps Legion ^^ 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 - 2015.03.09 23:55:04 - [1060] - Quote Tycho VI wrote: You gotta use some kind of imagination here....Has anyone considered how ridiculous that shooting a laser from a moving ship at a Station, TCU, SBU could somehow force all the workers inside the structure to be forced to end up changing to their side, like a mind control beam really? I would've actually thought that (especially since PGL indicated the Entosis Link began life as an application of the Hacking Modules) it was more indicative of the sovereignty structures being fully automated, rather than crewed.

Acuma Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic 11	Posted - 2015.03.09 23:55:53 - [1061] - Quote Alavaria Fera wrote: Acuma wrote: [quote="Tycho VI"] Lean towards the mechanic that the Entosis is actually a retractable bridge rather then a laser that serves the purpose of moving troops from said ship to said structure for active combat (the first timer), to reinforcing their forces for victory (second timer) etc.... SOMETHING LIKE THAT FOR LORE AND FUTURE UPDATES! Use a laser as the graphic placeholder forever if you have to. {/quote] I actually like the idea of some kind of boarding ship. Warp in to 0, launch troops on the structure, or something like that. This entosis module is unrealistic. Remember when DUST was supposed to be linked to sov? Well it got laser focus headshot, but perhaps Legion Do something unrelated. The higher the index, the more troops it takes. Have a timer where you monitor progress of the troop takeover, if you're losing bring in another one. Unused systems fall fast, highly used systems with big populations take a large force to take.
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 651	Posted - 2015.03.09 23:56:47 - [1062] - Quote Eli Apol wrote: And how long has this alt been logged in for in the last week? lmbo at this guy who doesn't understand basic highsec mechanics
Tycho VI Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective 9	Posted - 2015.03.09 23:57:48 - [1063] - Quote Arrendis wrote: Tycho VI wrote: You gotta use some kind of imagination here....Has anyone considered how ridiculous that shooting a laser from a moving ship at a Station, TCU, SBU could somehow force all the workers inside the structure to be forced to end up changing to their side, like a mind control beam really? I would've actually thought that (especially since PGL indicated the Entosis Link began life as an application of the Hacking Modules) it was more indicative of the sovereignty structures being fully automated, rather than crewed. Sov structures have these little windows on them that are lit up, I've always assumed lore wise that there are some crew members manning them...especially stations, and I-Hubs
Grath Telkin Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion 2731	Posted - 2015.03.09 23:58:08 - [1064] - Quote its shockingly funny to watch all of you running around worrying about frigates. it clearly shows how incapable you are of understanding the very simple layout of these sov mechanics. Malcanis - Without drone assign, the slowcat doctrine will wither and die.
Killian Cormac Cormac Distribution 7	Posted - 2015.03.09 23:58:26 - [1065] - Quote The other nice thing about 'trollceptors' is that they provide a low SP barrier for new players, so that they can feel relevant in sov-related activities without being just another line pilot in a Maulus.
Eli Apol Pro Synergy 352	Posted - 2015.03.09 23:58:46 - [1066] - Quote Promiscuous Female wrote: Eli Apol wrote: And how long has this alt been logged in for in the last week? lmbo at this guy who doesn't understand basic highsec mechanics Can you remind me if grid fu is legal again please? https://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Grid_Manipulation "This whole process is quite complex but not an exploit of game mechanics." Carry on spamming.
Acuma Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic 14	Posted - 2015.03.09 23:59:28 - [1067] - Quote Grath Telkin wrote: its shockingly funny to watch all of you running around worrying about frigates. it clearly shows how incapable you are of understanding the very simple layout of these sov mechanics. But frigates are indestructible! What can you do against them? /sarcasm off
PotatoOverdose Royal Black Watch Highlanders DARKNESS. 2645	Posted - 2015.03.09 23:59:55 - [1068] - Quote Acuma wrote: Grath Telkin wrote: its shockingly funny to watch all of you running around worrying about frigates. it clearly shows how incapable you are of understanding the very simple layout of these sov mechanics. But frigates are indestructible! What can you do against them? /sarcasm off Pretty much the entire thread, really.
Tycho VI Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective 9	Posted - 2015.03.10 00:00:03 - [1069] - Quote But I mean....You start using the link from a position, you can not deviate more then 90 degrees or a certain verible from the start position or the link breaks....would this alleviate any of the trolling concerns at all? Considering people are worried about users trolling by orbiting at 100+km with a small sig moving at 7km a sec... Not just one guy, but like a fleet of 40+ inty or something in orbit doing a troll circle....If they had to stay within 90 degrees of the start position relative to the structure(you may be able to track them at some point if they make a mistake in their spiral with a couple long range defenders/trolling requires piloting skill etc).
Alavaria Fera GoonWaffe 6596	Posted - 2015.03.10 00:00:17 - [1070] - Quote Acuma wrote: Grath Telkin wrote: its shockingly funny to watch all of you running around worrying about frigates. it clearly shows how incapable you are of understanding the very simple layout of these sov mechanics. But frigates are indestructible! What can you do against them? /sarcasm off Aha, so it's actually going to return to an isk-on-field methodology. ^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears. Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.

SilentAsTheGrave Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective 81	Posted - 2015.03.10 00:03:39 - [1071] - Quote Promiscuous Female wrote: Eli Apol wrote: Alp Khan wrote: who claimed to be an alt of a sovereign null resident citation please? Oh right, I never said such a thing. Nice point though, really helped the discussion. so you are asserting that you don't actually live in nullsec then at least Lanngisi III - Moon 2 - Sisters of Eve Bureau doesn't appear to be nullsec Made you search agent.
Acuma Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic 14	Posted - 2015.03.10 00:04:15 - [1072] - Quote Alavaria Fera wrote: Acuma wrote: Grath Telkin wrote: its shockingly funny to watch all of you running around worrying about frigates. it clearly shows how incapable you are of understanding the very simple layout of these sov mechanics. But frigates are indestructible! What can you do against them? /sarcasm off Aha, so it's actually going to return to an isk-on-field methodology. Numerous counters exist,. If the almighty goons are afraid of a few trollceptors......you have concerns about being able to defend your renters. Boo frickin hoo.
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 651	Posted - 2015.03.10 00:04:18 - [1073] - Quote Eli Apol wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: Eli Apol wrote: And how long has this alt been logged in for in the last week? lmbo at this guy who doesn't understand basic highsec mechanics Can you remind me if grid fu is legal again please? https://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Grid_Manipulation "This whole process is quite complex but not an exploit of game mechanics." Carry on spamming. i too cite the eveo wiki as an authoritative source last updated 6 september 2011
Eli Apol Pro Synergy 352	Posted - 2015.03.10 00:06:50 - [1074] - Quote Promiscuous Female wrote: Eli Apol wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: Eli Apol wrote: And how long has this alt been logged in for in the last week? lmbo at this guy who doesn't understand basic highsec mechanics Can you remind me if grid fu is legal again please? https://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Grid_Manipulation "This whole process is quite complex but not an exploit of game mechanics." Carry on spamming. i too cite the eveo wiki as an authoritative source last updated 6 september 2011 Sorry, here's the screenshot I made earlier of it being used on the Madirmilire gate of Niarja earlier today, feel free to burn a hundred km downwards to see it yourself.
SilentAsTheGrave Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective 81	Posted - 2015.03.10 00:06:56 - [1075] - Quote Grath Telkin wrote: its shockingly funny to watch all of you running around worrying about frigates. it clearly shows how incapable you are of understanding the very simple layout of these sov mechanics. Perhaps I missed it due to goons doing a thread CTA, but what are your thoughts on the whole thing?
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 652	Posted - 2015.03.10 00:07:06 - [1076] - Quote Grath Telkin wrote: its shockingly funny to watch all of you running around worrying about frigates. it clearly shows how incapable you are of understanding the very simple layout of these sov mechanics. hrm yes i need to assert my superiority over eveo but i can't be too committal, yeah, let's post a nice vague, unsubstantiated thing mmm there it is
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 15445	Posted - 2015.03.10 00:07:07 - [1077] - Quote Acuma wrote: Alavaria Fera wrote: Acuma wrote: Grath Telkin wrote: its shockingly funny to watch all of you running around worrying about frigates. it clearly shows how incapable you are of understanding the very simple layout of these sov mechanics. But frigates are indestructible! What can you do against them? /sarcasm off Aha, so it's actually going to return to an isk-on-field methodology. Numerous counters exist,. If the almighty goons are afraid of a few trollceptors......you have concerns about being able to defend your renters. Boo frickin hoo. I wonder how all the FW folks deal with the ALMIGHTY ceptor. I have yet to see one that would kill said trollcepter. To date they all require the cepter to be either be AFK or sitting still. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
Veskrashen Justified Chaos Spaceship Bebop 760	Posted - 2015.03.10 00:07:56 - [1078] - Quote Promiscuous Female wrote: Acuma wrote: Anything that can get past their gatecamps is UnbalancedGäó how dare we counter attempts at taking our sov with pvp God I know. It's such a burden to reward those folks in your alliance who love solo PvP in small ships for going around and ganking 100mil+ isk Trollceptors by the bucketfull. You'd think that offering a bounty on Trollceptors would be so demotivating that noone would gleefully undock their High Grade Snake clones and speed-fit combat interceptors and link alts should such an opportunity appear. But wait - that wouldn't be PvP, because it wouldn't involve sitting on a gate and ganking folks while watching **** on the other screen. My bad. We Gallente have a saying: "CCP created the Gallente Militia to train the Fighters..."
Alavaria Fera GoonWaffe 6596	Posted - 2015.03.10 00:07:57 - [1079] - Quote Acuma wrote: Alavaria Fera wrote: Acuma wrote: Grath Telkin wrote: its shockingly funny to watch all of you running around worrying about frigates. it clearly shows how incapable you are of understanding the very simple layout of these sov mechanics. But frigates are indestructible! What can you do against them? /sarcasm off Aha, so it's actually going to return to an isk-on-field methodology. Numerous counters exist,. If the almighty goons are afraid of a few trollceptors......you have concerns about being able to defend your renters. Boo frickin hoo. I wonder how all the FW folks deal with the ALMIGHTY ceptor. Renters huh.... hmm Moa might end our 0.0 -renter- dream, then ^^ 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 6596	Posted - 2015.03.10 00:09:19 - [1080] - Quote Promiscuous Female wrote: Grath Telkin wrote: its shockingly funny to watch all of you running around worrying about frigates. it clearly shows how incapable you are of understanding the very simple layout of these sov mechanics. hrm yes i need to assert my superiority over eveo but i can't be too committal, yeah, let's post a nice vague, unsubstantiated thing mmm there it is Aww I'm now vaguely turned on by this. But, like CCP's information thus far, it needs more details. ^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears. Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.

Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 652	Posted - 2015.03.10 00:09:27 - [1081] - Quote Eli Apol wrote: Sorry, here's the screenshot I made earlier of it being used on the Madirmilire gate of Niarja earlier today, feel free to burn a hundred km downwards to see it yourself. i too can wait until the gate is clear to make a screenshot clearly all 27 people in local were just sitting on the gate proving grid fu with screenshots is pretty difficult especially when your overview is cluttered with celestials
Eli Apol Pro Synergy 352	Posted - 2015.03.10 00:11:43 - [1082] - Quote Promiscuous Female wrote: Eli Apol wrote: Sorry, here's the screenshot I made earlier of it being used on the Madirmilire gate of Niarja earlier today, feel free to burn a hundred km downwards to see it yourself. i too can wait until the gate is clear to make a screenshot clearly all 27 people in local were just sitting on the gate proving grid fu with screenshots is pretty difficult especially when your overview is cluttered with celestials Go check it yourself then. I'm sorry that I had to refute your argument several hours ago when Niarja was relatively quiet and yet you still won't accept it. Also note the cunning way they're using mobile depots so they don't have to perform daily maintenance on it as you initially thought would be the case. Or just ask anyone that has a better grasp of that mechanic than your dear lovely self (anyone that knows about it really). edit: If you wanted REALLY fast verification, go ask in anti-ganking...then ask them about globby :D
Alavaria Fera GoonWaffe 6598	Posted - 2015.03.10 00:14:01 - [1083] - Quote So we're supposed to pretend that the gate is an ihub and the 27 people are sovlasering it...? ^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears. Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 655	Posted - 2015.03.10 00:15:29 - [1084] - Quote yeah, terrible image, lackluster proof, and overly defensive remarks aside, i guess i forget the point of linking a highsec system in regards to a nullsec thing
Lena Lazair Khanid Irregulars Khanid's Legion 423	Posted - 2015.03.10 00:15:30 - [1085] - Quote Based on the goals stated, I'm struggling to figure out why this isn't a new-style deployable. Give it reasonably high EHP/omni resists along the lines of an MTU. Give it a TINY sig rad to make it hard to bomb and slow for sniper fleets to lock w/o significant sebo. Make it 50 to 100m3 in size. Make it vulnerable to ECM (though omni only; eg omni strengths that must ALL be 0 before jammed) so that it pauses cycling while jammed. Make it impossible to rescoop until a cycle completes successfully (eg destruction or win, no scoop and run). Grid control? Check; virtually impossible to keep alive a deployable w/o grid control. Troll-y? Not really... frigates can only carry a few without resupply. This allows legitimate use in fastfrigs/intys to contest abandoned sov, but makes it much tougher to troll entire regions (since they can't rescoop deployed units unless/until they cycle completely). Occupancy? This makes it even easier for defenders to "prove" occupancy. Any ship that can control grid/apply DPS can destroy a troll deployable, without requiring a defensive e-link of their own. That said, the behavior that deadlocks control when more than one alliance's e-links are deployed should remain. Multiple can be deployed; only question is whether a single pilot should be able to deploy more than one at a time. Defensible? With a good mix of EHP and sig, should be possible to tweak to a point where sniper/bomber attacks are not effective enough without grid control to pop it before it cycles successfully. Also, true null grid control against sniper/bomber is required (eg proper use of defensive bubbles).
Eli Apol Pro Synergy 352	Posted - 2015.03.10 00:17:59 - [1086] - Quote Promiscuous Female wrote: yeah, terrible image, lackluster proof, and overly defensive remarks aside, i guess i forget the point of linking a highsec system in regards to a nullsec thing I guess it was to show you spouting even more BS when testing my knowledge of mechanics that work in ALL SPACE (not just highsec)? I mean cmon, the well distributed .pdf all about grid-fu has a massive bee on the top of it and you didn't know?
Tycho VI Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective 9	Posted - 2015.03.10 00:19:17 - [1087] - Quote Tycho VI wrote: But I mean....You start using the link from a position, you can not deviate more then 90 degrees or a certain verible from the start position or the link breaks....would this alleviate any of the trolling concerns at all? Considering people are worried about users trolling by orbiting at 100+km with a small sig moving at 7km a sec... Not just one guy, but like a fleet of 40+ inty or something in orbit doing a troll circle....If they had to stay within 90 degrees of the start position relative to the structure(you may be able to track them at some point if they make a mistake in their spiral with a couple long range defenders/trolling requires piloting skill etc). Some quickly made images to illustrate this concept: The actual angles could be different, this one assumes you pass 90 degrees from the start point in relation to the structure which would deactivate the link. 2 IMAGES: http://i.imgur.com/2A90q5S.jpg http://i.imgur.com/Ndgfimz.jpg
Arrendis GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 317	Posted - 2015.03.10 00:19:48 - [1088] - Quote Tycho VI wrote: Arrendis wrote: Tycho VI wrote: You gotta use some kind of imagination here....Has anyone considered how ridiculous that shooting a laser from a moving ship at a Station, TCU, SBU could somehow force all the workers inside the structure to be forced to end up changing to their side, like a mind control beam really? I would've actually thought that (especially since PGL indicated the Entosis Link began life as an application of the Hacking Modules) it was more indicative of the sovereignty structures being fully automated, rather than crewed. Sov structures have these little windows on them that are lit up, I've always assumed lore wise that there are some crew members manning them...especially stations, and I-Hubs After all of the problems Microsoft has caused, you're relying on windows?
Alavaria Fera GoonWaffe 6598	Posted - 2015.03.10 00:20:05 - [1089] - Quote Lena Lazair wrote: Based on the goals stated, I'm struggling to figure out why this isn't a new-style deployable. Give it reasonably high EHP/omni resists along the lines of an MTU. Give it a TINY sig rad to make it hard to bomb and slow for sniper fleets to lock w/o significant sebo. Make it 50 to 100m3 in size. Make it vulnerable to ECM (though omni only; eg omni strengths that must ALL be 0 before jammed) so that it pauses cycling while jammed. Make it impossible to rescoop until a cycle completes successfully (eg destruction or win, no scoop and run). Grid control? Check; virtually impossible to keep alive a deployable w/o grid control. Troll-y? Not really... frigates can only carry a few without resupply. This allows legitimate use in fastfrigs/intys to contest abandoned sov, but makes it much tougher to troll entire regions (since they can't rescoop deployed units unless/until they cycle completely). Occupancy? This makes it even easier for defenders to "prove" occupancy. Any ship that can control grid/apply DPS can destroy a troll deployable, without requiring a defensive e-link of their own. That said, the behavior that deadlocks control when more than one alliance's e-links are deployed should remain. Multiple can be deployed; only question is whether a single pilot should be able to deploy more than one at a time. Defensible? With a good mix of EHP and sig, should be possible to tweak to a point where sniper/bomber attacks are not effective enough without grid control to pop it before it cycles successfully. Also, true null grid control against sniper/bomber is required (eg proper use of defensive bubbles). An interesting idea... Defenders must shoot the ~~structure~~ deployable. This is of course different from the SBU, as it has to be dealt with immediately (it will reinforce the thing, unlike SBU where the attackers must come back and still structure grind). Too bad it will probably be buried, but a nice suggestion EDIT: I'm serious, it is actually an interesting idea. Definitely better than the drop SBU -> Wait 3 hours -> Structure shoot thing. ^^ 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 760	Posted - 2015.03.10 00:23:19 - [1090] - Quote Lena Lazair wrote: Based on the goals stated, I'm struggling to figure out why this isn't a new-style deployable. Because part of the idea, at least in my read of things, is to have more people active and vulnerable in space. While a Trollceptor could conceivably only carry a few, a cloaky T3 could carry far more - and a Blockade Runner could carry dozens and dozens. This would allow a single pilot to carpet bomb the hell out of a constellation or region, while not putting himself at any risk at all - there would be no requirement for him to even be uncloaked for his multitude of sov deployables to do their dastardly work. In addition, it would take an appreciable amount of time for a defender to kill them all. The disparity in effort would be even more Trolltastic than the fabled unkillable uncounterable Trollceptors. If it doesn't require you to be on grid, active, and unable to escape grid without losing your progress... it doesn't fit the bill. We Gallente have a saying: "CCP created the Gallente Militia to train the Fighters..."

Alavaria Fera GoonWaffe 6599	Posted - 2015.03.10 00:26:54 - [1091] - Quote Veskrashen wrote: Lena Lazair wrote: Based on the goals stated, I'm struggling to figure out why this isn't a new-style deployable. Because part of the idea, at least in my read of things, is to have more people active and vulnerable in space. While a Trollceptor could conceivably only carry a few, a cloaky T3 could carry far more - and a Blockade Runner could carry dozens and dozens. This would allow a single pilot to carpet bomb the hell out of a constellation or region, while not putting himself at any risk at all - there would be no requirement for him to even be uncloaked for his multitude of sov deployables to do their dastardly work. In addition, it would take an appreciable amount of time for a defender to kill them all. The disparity in effort would be even more Trolltastic than the fabled unkillable uncounterable Trollceptors. If it doesn't require you to be on grid, active, and unable to escape grid without losing your progress... it doesn't fit the bill. Tsk... I have to take back what I said before then. I forgot groups with some logistics capability and tons of isk might do that. Perhaps there might be a way to limit the number you can keep in your hold... or hhmm ^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears. Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
SootThis High Flyers The Kadeshi 2	Posted - 2015.03.10 00:26:56 - [1092] - Quote Kale Freeman wrote: What about ditching the whole Entosis link entirely. Make a Entosis deployable. It takes 10 minutes to come online. It needs to be deployed within 25/250km of the objective. Once it is online and there are no more enemy entosis deployables on grid the owner can right click it and instruct it to attack/hack the objective. Now this makes the most sense of all.....+1
Petrified Old and Petrified Syndication TOG - The Older Gamers Alliance 234	Posted - 2015.03.10 00:28:06 - [1093] - Quote CCP Fozzie wrote: 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. Fair enough, overall this is the best approach. I retract any earlier statements asking for class and movement restrictions.
Veskrashen Justified Chaos Spaceship Bebop 760	Posted - 2015.03.10 00:28:34 - [1094] - Quote Alavaria Fera wrote: An interesting idea... Defenders must shoot the ~~structure~~ deployable. This is of course different from the SBU, as it has to be dealt with immediately (it will reinforce the thing, unlike SBU where the attackers must come back and still structure grind). Too bad it will probably be buried, but a nice suggestion If defenders are plinking away at unmanned structures, they're not shooting at other players. 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 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. 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? I mean, unless you like being able to screw with someone's sov while not even being around. Like, I dunno, AFK Sov Landlords and the like. We Gallente have a saying: "CCP created the Gallente Militia to train the Fighters..."
Lena Lazair Khanid Irregulars Khanid's Legion 424	Posted - 2015.03.10 00:31:42 - [1095] - Quote Veskrashen wrote: Lena Lazair wrote: Based on the goals stated, I'm struggling to figure out why this isn't a new-style deployable. Because part of the idea, at least in my read of things, is to have more people active and vulnerable in space. M If it doesn't require you to be on grid, active, and unable to escape grid without losing your progress... it doesn't fit the bill. The fix to that is alluded in my op; only allow pilots to have one of these deployed at a time. Sure, this is still gives a slight change (you can travel to your next target while it cycles, if willing to leave 100m deployable behind and undefended), but would cap the troll rate. Increase cycle times slightly to compensate for this travel edge and you are no worse off than now.
Nolak Ataru KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 767	Posted - 2015.03.10 00:32:43 - [1096] - Quote Alp Khan wrote: Eli Apol wrote: Alp Khan wrote: You are wrong. Even so, I appreciate your candor. However, this isn't Zulu. Goons, fousands of them, don't shoot til you see the whites of their lies? Coming from a high-sec salvager, who claimed to be an alt of a sovereign null resident when called out for commenting on a type of environment has no prior experience with, your sentence is almost entertaining. Almost. "Guys, my alt is actually Garmon..... no really guyz.... why don't you believe me guyz?" That being said, I'm left wondering what role CCP has for capitals in the future...
Petrified Old and Petrified Syndication TOG - The Older Gamers Alliance 234	Posted - 2015.03.10 00:33:22 - [1097] - Quote SootThis wrote: Kale Freeman wrote: What about ditching the whole Entosis link entirely. Make a Entosis deployable. It takes 10 minutes to come online. It needs to be deployed within 25/250km of the objective. Once it is online and there are no more enemy entosis deployables on grid the owner can right click it and instruct it to attack/hack the objective. Now this makes the most sense of all.....+1 Except you will then have people placing 10-100 of their own entosis deployables around structures much like they do now with SBUs in systems they control. Unless the deployable can be easily popped, AFK defenses/delays will be the norm. So... no.
Kaarous Aldurald Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE. 12096	Posted - 2015.03.10 00:34:12 - [1098] - Quote Nolak Ataru wrote: That being said, I'm left wondering what role CCP has for capitals in the future... Dreadnaughts chief among them. If the ship's niche was "shoot structures" and now structure shooting it largely abrogated... don't they need a new niche? "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs.
Veskrashen Justified Chaos Spaceship Bebop 760	Posted - 2015.03.10 00:34:31 - [1099] - Quote Lena Lazair wrote: Veskrashen wrote: Lena Lazair wrote: Based on the goals stated, I'm struggling to figure out why this isn't a new-style deployable. Because part of the idea, at least in my read of things, is to have more people active and vulnerable in space. M If it doesn't require you to be on grid, active, and unable to escape grid without losing your progress... it doesn't fit the bill. The fix to that is alluded in my op; only allow pilots to have one of these deployed at a time. Sure, this is still gives a slight change (you can travel to your next target while it cycles, if willing to leave 100m deployable behind and undefended), but would cap the troll rate. Increase cycle times slightly to compensate for this travel edge and you are no worse off than now. But again - it's not YOUR butt at risk. It's a deployable, which can easily be sacrificed if you're isk-immune enough. And even if you can only deploy one at a time, YOU are still not at risk - you can sit around cloaked waiting for a defender to come by, or scoop it right back up if they don't. It's not keeping you on grid and vulnerable. That's a bad idea if one of the design goals is to force you to control the grid to make progress. We Gallente have a saying: "CCP created the Gallente Militia to train the Fighters..."
Lena Lazair Khanid Irregulars Khanid's Legion 424	Posted - 2015.03.10 00:39:48 - [1100] - Quote Veskrashen wrote: But again - it's not YOUR butt at risk. It's a deployable, which can easily be sacrificed if you're isk-immune enough. And even if you can only deploy one at a time, YOU are still not at risk - you can sit around cloaked waiting for a defender to come by, or scoop it right back up if they don't. It's not keeping you on grid and vulnerable. That's a bad idea if one of the design goals is to force you to control the grid to make progress. That's splitting hairs and arguing semantics. My ship isn't ME either. MY butt is never on the line. If the deployable generates a KM and the isk counted for my KB and against yours, there is literally no difference. Putting ships on-grid and vulnerable will still be required for actual sov contests anyway; none of this negates the need to control the grid to win so it only matters for the troll-y edge cases anyway.

Groperson GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 64	Posted - 2015.03.10 00:40:51 - [1101] - Quote Grath Telkin wrote: its shockingly funny to watch all of you running around worrying about frigates. it clearly shows how incapable you are of understanding the very simple layout of these sov mechanics. Please explain the very simple layout of these sov mechanics then. I am truly interested in seeing your interpretation. I made some fairly concise and relevant posts in this thread explaining exactly what mechanics I found troubling, and I think my logic is very sound. I'd like you to critique the my logic in the posts I've made because I cannot see what part is flawed. Honestly, I want to see how I've misunderstood the layout of these sov mechanics. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5565509#post5565509 Quote: [if you allow interceptors to fit entosis links] You are allowing the attacker to risk nothing, a completely disposable interceptor that will very likely never be caught. Whilst the defender risks their entire home and are forced to come out and fight and do 10x the amount of work if they aren't quick enough. That is pushing it far too much in the favor of the attacker. I ask you to make it so that the attackers must risk something if they want to attack sov, be it a cruiser or battlecruiser or above. At least they can be caught. I understand your worry of 'artifically shifting the meta towards larger ships', but if you if you allow interceptors or frigate sized ships to capture sov then you will artifically shifted the meta towards frigate killing/max mobility, since they will be the most optimal choice to attack.
Alavaria Fera GoonWaffe 6600	Posted - 2015.03.10 00:41:50 - [1102] - Quote Lena Lazair wrote: Veskrashen wrote: Lena Lazair wrote: Based on the goals stated, I'm struggling to figure out why this isn't a new-style deployable. Because part of the idea, at least in my read of things, is to have more people active and vulnerable in space. M If it doesn't require you to be on grid, active, and unable to escape grid without losing your progress... it doesn't fit the bill. The fix to that is alluded in my op; only allow pilots to have one of these deployed at a time. Sure, this is still a slight change (you can travel to your next target while it cycles, if willing to leave 100m deployable behind and undefended), but would cap the troll rate. Increase cycle times slightly to compensate for this travel edge and you are no worse off than now. EDIT: Even better, since you add risk for the troll. If someone is trolling space, instead of popping their deployable, I can choose to just drop a defensive one and leave it deadlocked. Now the troll has to waste MORE time travelling back and popping mine, waiting on theirs, and rescooping, OR popping their own, before they can deploy a new one. Hahaha, oh that's great. Yeah if you had defensive ones, the troll has to be able to actually kill it. A blockade runner can't I think... an interceptor might have some trouble... ^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears. Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
Tycho VI Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective 9	Posted - 2015.03.10 00:42:42 - [1103] - Quote Tycho VI wrote: Tycho VI wrote: But I mean....You start using the link from a position, you can not deviate more then 90 degrees or a certain verible from the start position or the link breaks....would this alleviate any of the trolling concerns at all? Considering people are worried about users trolling by orbiting at 100+km with a small sig moving at 7km a sec... Not just one guy, but like a fleet of 40+ inty or something in orbit doing a troll circle....If they had to stay within 90 degrees of the start position relative to the structure(you may be able to track them at some point if they make a mistake in their spiral with a couple long range defenders/trolling requires piloting skill etc). Some quickly made images to illustrate this concept: The actual angles could be different, this one assumes you pass 90 degrees from the start point in relation to the structure which would deactivate the link. 2 IMAGES: http://i.imgur.com/2A90q5S.jpg http://i.imgur.com/Ndgfimz.jpg There would be a plane you can not pass or the link will be broken. With this, a couple inties harassing a small group would eventually become vulnerable through transversal when they have to stay within the limits of their starting plane to keep the link from breaking. However, you can still bring enough pilots to actually surround the structure with multiple links activated at once to keep the contest going. But at some point each ship would become vulnerable through transversal to be tracked by a small number of long range defenders. Or they could break their link through piloting error.
MASSADEATH MASS A DEATH Mordus Angels 74	Posted - 2015.03.10 00:44:15 - [1104] - Quote Alavaria Fera wrote: M1k3y Koontz wrote: Alavaria Fera wrote: Arthur Aihaken wrote: baltec1 wrote: For the love of god do not allow us such a tool because we will abuse it and make life for everyone else miserable. I think if one were to take only one thing out of the discussion, this would be it. It's a lie. We're afraid massadeath of moa will abuse it and take away our innocence as sov havers This kind of posting is why CCP don't actually read the threads. I'm out, if anything changes to the mechanics it'll be posted on TMC or EN24, so I'm not wasting any more of my time on this rabble. But it's true. Look at all the posts pointing out how scared we must be. Well ok, it might take more than just massadeath, he probably has to get some people from moa to do it, and maybe even a third party. But this is well within the reasonable range of possibilities. Thus, we are scared. Sorry we were busy killing a few bill of your ships in YAO ..i would link you the kills but i think its against the rules..suffice to say some poor guy lost 800m+ in a hauler carrying what looks like all his goodies. Guess he thought he was safe deep in goon SOV territory... the way I see it.... any change from what we have is a step up..and change is good and fun
Alavaria Fera GoonWaffe 6600	Posted - 2015.03.10 00:44:29 - [1105] - Quote 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" 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. ^^ 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 6600	Posted - 2015.03.10 00:46:25 - [1106] - Quote MASSADEATH wrote: Alavaria Fera wrote: But it's true. Look at all the posts pointing out how scared we must be. Well ok, it might take more than just massadeath, he probably has to get some people from moa to do it, and maybe even a third party. But this is well within the reasonable range of possibilities. Thus, we are scared. Sorry we were busy killing a few bill of your ships in YAO ..i would link you the kills but i think its against the rules..suffice to say some poor guy lost 800m+ in a hauler carrying what looks like all his goodies. Guess he thought he was safe deep in goon SOV territory... the way I see it.... any change from what we have is a step up..and change is good and fun I remember when fatigue was going to allow you to end our 0.0 dream, too I don't know what to believe anymore ^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears. Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
Tycho VI Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective 9	Posted - 2015.03.10 00:47:39 - [1107] - Quote sry double post
Arrendis GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 317	Posted - 2015.03.10 00:47:45 - [1108] - Quote MASSADEATH wrote: Sorry we were busy killing a few bill of your ships in YAO ..i would link you the kills but i think its against the rules..suffice to say some poor guy lost 800m+ in a hauler carrying what looks like all his goodies. Guess he thought he was safe deep in goon SOV territory... the way I see it.... any change from what we have is a step up..and change is good and fun Was that before or after you decided to drop Reagalan's FC damnation and impotently shoot at it until he got bored?
Alavaria Fera GoonWaffe 6601	Posted - 2015.03.10 00:48:46 - [1109] - Quote Arrendis wrote: MASSADEATH wrote: Sorry we were busy killing a few bill of your ships in YAO ..i would link you the kills but i think its against the rules..suffice to say some poor guy lost 800m+ in a hauler carrying what looks like all his goodies. Guess he thought he was safe deep in goon SOV territory... the way I see it.... any change from what we have is a step up..and change is good and fun Was that before or after you decided to drop Reagalan's FC damnation and impotently shoot at it until he got bored? Was it a newbee? I don't recall hearing about this. When did it happen, just recently? Even if you can't link the killmail, name and shame please. Er if it was a newbie with salvage especially let us know... Maybe next time we can have Regalan's FC sovtroll damnation ^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears. Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
Sabriz Adoudel Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE. 4811	Posted - 2015.03.10 00:50:49 - [1110] - Quote One (or both) of these suggestions would be where I would start on balance: 1) Absolute sigrad penalty for an active EL - Something of the order '+50m sigrad' would counter trollceptors somewhat, and allow sniper-fit ships to hit them. - However, you'd still need something that can apply damage - an Entosis Confessor with a 10MN MWD moves so fast that drones and missiles cannot ever hit it. 10MN AB Succubus fits might do the same too, I'd need to theorycraft it. 2) Absolute speed limits for ships with an active EL. - Something of the order 'This modules limits speed to 4000 m/s' would solve even more issues with evasion fits. 3) Restriction to fitting oversized prop mods and ELs together - No idea how you would do this. - Oversized prop mods add to the game and I don't want that gameplay lost as a casualty here. - I have no issue with normal prop mods with ELs. 4) Reduction in the effect of prop mods when an EL is active - This might be needed, an 'AB/MWD effect reduced by 80%' effect or similar. Chaos. Opportunity. Destruction. Excitement... Vote #1 Sabriz Adoudel for CSM 10

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).

Veskrashen Justified Chaos Spaceship Bebop 764	Posted - 2015.03.10 03:02:00 - [1141] - Quote Promiscuous Female wrote: 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 Nope. Interceptors already have counters. How much their ability to avoid gatecamps annoys you is just a bonus. We Gallente have a saying: "CCP created the Gallente Militia to train the Fighters..."
Veskrashen Justified Chaos Spaceship Bebop 764	Posted - 2015.03.10 03:02:54 - [1142] - Quote Alavaria Fera wrote: After all, your drakes must stay on grid until the hp bar gets to where it reinforces, so you should stay on grid until the sov laser gets the sov laser bar thing to the reinforce point. Exactly! Stay on grid until the timer's run, or don't influence the timer at all. Pretty simple, I think. We Gallente have a saying: "CCP created the Gallente Militia to train the Fighters..."
Alavaria Fera GoonWaffe 6602	Posted - 2015.03.10 03:09:56 - [1143] - Quote It's Structure Shooting Mk2: Structure Lasering Ok, sounds good to me. Let's stick with the module concept. Not that drakes could really troll sov by shooting and scooting, but it's ok since we want frigates in their ones and twos to take sov ^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears. Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
Baali Tekitsu AQUILA INC Verge of Collapse 699	Posted - 2015.03.10 03:11:08 - [1144] - Quote Prepare your anuses sov holders of new eden as Im gonna take all your sov in my interceptor and you can do nuffin about it. Rental contract 1b/month for -0.1 system and 100m additional for ice belt or additional sec level. Shoot me a mail so we can sort the details. Goons better prepare FW campaign tho, theyre not getting any systems from me. RATE LIKE SUBSCRIBE
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 655	Posted - 2015.03.10 03:11:33 - [1145] - Quote Veskrashen wrote: Interceptors already have counters nope
Veskrashen Justified Chaos Spaceship Bebop 765	Posted - 2015.03.10 03:13:56 - [1146] - Quote Alavaria Fera wrote: It's Structure Shooting Mk2: Structure Lasering Ok, sounds good to me. Let's stick with the module concept. Not that drakes could really troll sov by shooting and scooting, but it's ok since we want frigates in their ones and twos to take sov As a FW pilot, this mechanic is very familiar to me. Be on grid for a set amount of time to cap a plex and advance your control of the system. It ain't hard - stay on grid, hold the grid, kill what comes. Only difference is that the capture range for the new sov structures is 250km, it's not deadspace, and there's no cap on ship sizes. We Gallente have a saying: "CCP created the Gallente Militia to train the Fighters..."
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 655	Posted - 2015.03.10 03:14:25 - [1147] - Quote Baali Tekitsu wrote: Prepare your anuses sov holders of new eden as Im gonna take all your sov in my interceptor and you can do nuffin about it. Rental contract 1b/month for -0.1 system and 100m additional for ice belt or additional sec level. Shoot me a mail so we can sort the details. Goons better prepare FW campaign tho, theyre not getting any systems from me. unfortunately you can't collapse nullsec gates when things go south for you
Veskrashen Justified Chaos Spaceship Bebop 765	Posted - 2015.03.10 03:14:43 - [1148] - Quote Promiscuous Female wrote: Veskrashen wrote: Interceptors already have counters nope You are absolutely blind if you think that. We Gallente have a saying: "CCP created the Gallente Militia to train the Fighters..."
Baali Tekitsu AQUILA INC Verge of Collapse 699	Posted - 2015.03.10 03:14:49 - [1149] - Quote Promiscuous Female wrote: Veskrashen wrote: Interceptors already have counters nope Thats correct, you better enjoy your anoms until the sov changes because they gonna be mine soon. RATE LIKE SUBSCRIBE
Zazad Antollare Enlightened Industries Goonswarm Federation 0	Posted - 2015.03.10 03:15:18 - [1150] - Quote No structure shooting XD nothing close to SBUs. The hp doesnGÇÖt really matter if its invulnerable while 2 or more links are active (read contest) and if abandoning the grid destroys it (only should remain alive if the timer is won)

zzrat AQUILA INC Verge of Collapse 2	Posted - 2015.03.10 03:15:50 - [1151] - Quote To combat the troll kite fit, the closer you are to the point the more control your ship has over it. As in, Two of the same ship type, one at 250km and one at 10km the one at 10km will win. Or donGÇÖt base it on ship type, the closes ship with a entosis on the point will win the tug of war, in the allotted time. zz
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 655	Posted - 2015.03.10 03:16:24 - [1152] - Quote Veskrashen wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: Veskrashen wrote: Interceptors already have counters nope You are absolutely blind if you think that. i tend not to see unicorns yes this doesn't make me blind, it makes you delusional
Baali Tekitsu AQUILA INC Verge of Collapse 700	Posted - 2015.03.10 03:16:41 - [1153] - Quote Promiscuous Female wrote: Baali Tekitsu wrote: Prepare your anuses sov holders of new eden as Im gonna take all your sov in my interceptor and you can do nuffin about it. Rental contract 1b/month for -0.1 system and 100m additional for ice belt or additional sec level. Shoot me a mail so we can sort the details. Goons better prepare FW campaign tho, theyre not getting any systems from me. unfortunately you can't collapse nullsec gates when things go south for you They cant go south (at least for me) because Im gonna be flying a uncounterable imterceptor. RATE LIKE SUBSCRIBE
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 655	Posted - 2015.03.10 03:18:20 - [1154] - Quote Baali Tekitsu wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: Baali Tekitsu wrote: Prepare your anuses sov holders of new eden as Im gonna take all your sov in my interceptor and you can do nuffin about it. Rental contract 1b/month for -0.1 system and 100m additional for ice belt or additional sec level. Shoot me a mail so we can sort the details. Goons better prepare FW campaign tho, theyre not getting any systems from me. unfortunately you can't collapse nullsec gates when things go south for you They cant go south (at least for me) because Im gonna be flying a uncounterable imterceptor. so you post that they are uncounterable and your alt says they aren't
Baali Tekitsu AQUILA INC Verge of Collapse 700	Posted - 2015.03.10 03:20:28 - [1155] - Quote Promiscuous Female wrote: Baali Tekitsu wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: Baali Tekitsu wrote: Prepare your anuses sov holders of new eden as Im gonna take all your sov in my interceptor and you can do nuffin about it. Rental contract 1b/month for -0.1 system and 100m additional for ice belt or additional sec level. Shoot me a mail so we can sort the details. Goons better prepare FW campaign tho, theyre not getting any systems from me. unfortunately you can't collapse nullsec gates when things go south for you They cant go south (at least for me) because Im gonna be flying a uncounterable imterceptor. so you post that they are uncounterable and your alt says they aren't You say that and I share your opinion. I dont have alts. RATE LIKE SUBSCRIBE
Veskrashen Justified Chaos Spaceship Bebop 765	Posted - 2015.03.10 03:24:31 - [1156] - Quote Promiscuous Female wrote: Veskrashen wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: Veskrashen wrote: Interceptors already have counters nope You are absolutely blind if you think that. i tend not to see unicorns yes this doesn't make me blind, it makes you delusional Riiiiiight. For those who can't remember the counters, here's a synopsis: 1. Defenders will always be faster than you, ceteris paribus, because they'll be able to bring links and you won't. 2. If they have probes, they'll land within engagement range of you everytime. And then you die, because you have no tank and can't leave. 3. If you bugger off like the risk averse pansy nullbear you are, they hold grid and can quickly undo your work. 4. If you bugger off to another objective in their space, they can do it again. 5. If there's 50 of you in their space, the reasonable response is to park tanky AFK alts on any structure they care about, and you make zero progress. 6. There are quite frankly bazillions of counters to fast interceptors - assuming you're not so married to gate camping that you can't see any other solution. So long as you're willing to concede that building a huge wall of bubbles on the chokepoints to your precious sov doesn't protect you, a multitude of solutions unfold before you. The single objection Gewns have raised is that Inties can insta-warp and are interdiction nullified, and therefore can't be gatecamped out of their widdle Fortress Deklein. They have no problem at all with cloakies, nullified T3s, or wicked fast T3 destroyers like the Svipul and Confessor. The one and only thing that bothers them is things that can avoid a bubble camp with instalocking overwatch. To someone with any tinfoil tendencies, that would suggest that at least one preliminary defensive strategy was to bubblecamp the snot out of chokepoints into their territory, and keep a sharp eye out for new wormhole signatures. Interceptors would render that preventative strategy pointless. 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 03:29:06 - [1157] - Quote You people really dont get it, the best way to deal with this is not changing how interceptors work or how the link interacts with the ship, its making that the link works in a way that is equal to all ships so that no ship class is favored in the sov war.
Veskrashen Justified Chaos Spaceship Bebop 766	Posted - 2015.03.10 03:32:47 - [1158] - Quote Zazad Antollare wrote: You people really dont get it, the best way to deal with this is not changing how interceptors work or how the link interacts with the ship, its making that the link works in a way that is equal to all ships so that no ship class is favored in the sov war. Exactly. Right now it does. No need to make special cases for those with high warp speeds or interdiction nullification properties. We Gallente have a saying: "CCP created the Gallente Militia to train the Fighters..."
Alavaria Fera GoonWaffe 6602	Posted - 2015.03.10 03:33:10 - [1159] - Quote Doesn't matter anymore. In the past, it was ships with DPS and ideally not having to reload Now it's just you need to be able to run about, and ideally not be catchable by bubbles ^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears. Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 655	Posted - 2015.03.10 03:34:59 - [1160] - Quote Veskrashen wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: Veskrashen wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: Veskrashen wrote: Interceptors already have counters nope You are absolutely blind if you think that. i tend not to see unicorns yes this doesn't make me blind, it makes you delusional Riiiiiight. For those who can't remember the counters, here's a synopsis: 1. Defenders will always be faster than you, ceteris paribus, because they'll be able to bring links and you won't. 2. If they have probes, they'll land within engagement range of you everytime. And then you die, because you have no tank and can't leave. 3. If you bugger off like the risk averse pansy nullbear you are, they hold grid and can quickly undo your work. 4. If you bugger off to another objective in their space, they can do it again. 5. If there's 50 of you in their space, the reasonable response is to park tanky AFK alts on any structure they care about, and you make zero progress. 6. There are quite frankly bazillions of counters to fast interceptors - assuming you're not so married to gate camping that you can't see any other solution. So long as you're willing to concede that building a huge wall of bubbles on the chokepoints to your precious sov doesn't protect you, a multitude of solutions unfold before you. The single objection Gewns have raised is that Inties can insta-warp and are interdiction nullified, and therefore can't be gatecamped out of their widdle Fortress Deklein. They have no problem at all with cloakies, nullified T3s, or wicked fast T3 destroyers like the Svipul and Confessor. The one and only thing that bothers them is things that can avoid a bubble camp with instalocking overwatch. To someone with any tinfoil tendencies, that would suggest that at least one preliminary defensive strategy was to bubblecamp the snot out of chokepoints into their territory, and keep a sharp eye out for new wormhole signatures. Interceptors would render that preventative strategy pointless. interceptors are faster than any defender (hint: 8 AU/s warp speed), probes show up on dscan allowing you to disengage, after disengaging you go to work on another structure, and a single viable counter to an interceptor has yet to be posted covert bridging also allows you to bypass bubble camps so feel free to drop that sophistry whenever you feel like it ships need to be realistically catchable for any defense to be worthwhile i don't like to assign 0.0 experience by alliance alone but damned if you all aren't doing a fine job betraying your lack of experience with your words

Zazad Antollare Enlightened Industries Goonswarm Federation 0	Posted - 2015.03.10 03:36:09 - [1161] - Quote Veskrashen wrote: Zazad Antollare wrote: You people really dont get it, the best way to deal with this is not changing how interceptors work or how the link interacts with the ship, its making that the link works in a way that is equal to all ships so that no ship class is favored in the sov war. Exactly. Right now it does. No need to make special cases for those with high warp speeds or interdiction nullification properties. Right now its doesnt, you stick it in a BS you have a tanky link, you stick it in a interceptor you have a fast and manuveral link, that doesnt seem the same (plus you have ilimited uses on the link).
SilentAsTheGrave Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective 85	Posted - 2015.03.10 03:41:06 - [1162] - Quote In regards to the Entosis Link using fuel: I think this is a good idea. Using one Strontium every time you turn the module on would do a few good things. As Mike pointed out earlier along with the original people I'm sure; it would mean there is some form of logistics taking place to contest these systems. Especially when it comes to the outer lying systems. Smaller ships, such as interceptors hint hint, will have to be somewhat selective on what systems to contest and how many times they are willing to try to contest it. If they find themselves dealing with actual defenders active in the system and negating their Entosis Link with their own, they will have wasted time and will need to move on. Even if super zippy, untouchable (allegedly... ) ships do their thing, they can only do it so long before they run out of fuel. The defenders have the luxary of nearby stations and POS's that are common for alliances that own sov to resupply their Entosis Links. Overdrive Injectors, which is used to gain fast speed, have a penalty to cargo space. Food for thought. If players do not like the idea of having to resupply so often with small fast ships, they can use larger ships with bigger cargo bays. These larger ships tend to be much, much slower than tiny fast frigates. Getting the picture now? What the over all effect is it still means abandoned systems can still be captured just as easy as this new sov system wants, without having to subject itself to the mythical Trollceptors that terrorize the dreams of certain groups. What are your thoughts?
Anya Solette GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 33	Posted - 2015.03.10 03:41:11 - [1163] - Quote Raptors warp at 12 au/s though :pwn:
Veskrashen Justified Chaos Spaceship Bebop 766	Posted - 2015.03.10 03:42:24 - [1164] - Quote Promiscuous Female wrote: interceptors are faster than any defender (hint: 8 AU/s warp speed), probes show up on dscan allowing you to disengage, after disengaging you go to work on another structure, and a single viable counter to an interceptor has yet to be posted covert bridging also allows you to bypass bubble camps so feel free to drop that sophistry whenever you feel like it ships need to be realistically catchable for any defense to be worthwhile i don't like to assign 0.0 experience by alliance alone but damned if you all aren't doing a fine job betraying your lack of experience with your words 1. You're stuck on grid until the module finishes its cycle. You cannot disengage at will. 2. Buggering off to another structure only works if you can have 2+ minutes unmolested at the new structure to make progress. If someone arrives before then and you're forced to bugger off again, you make no progress and therefore waste their time. 3. I would buy the "covert cynos" bit if cloaky ships or cloaky nullified T3s were an issue in your eyes, but they're not. Which is totally reasonable - they're a lot easier to catch. But since those aren't an issue, it's the ability to avoid gatecamps that has your panties in a knot. If you perused my corp history, you'd realize I do actually have quite a bit of nullsec experience. But we're not really talking about experience with nullsec dynamics currently, we're dealing with a distributed objective grid limited timer based capture mechanic. Which, if you understand Faction Warfare at all, is exactly what I've been dealing with for over a year and a half. And just like stabbed plexing alts are not a problem at all in Faction Warfare for folks who are willing to actively defend their space, Trollceptors are not a problem for any semi-active nullsec alliance with half a brain and reasonable activity levels. But hey, keep emptyposting and doing the "yer a pubbie!" ad hominem BS attacks. Really makes your point for you. We Gallente have a saying: "CCP created the Gallente Militia to train the Fighters..."
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 655	Posted - 2015.03.10 03:42:45 - [1165] - Quote Anya Solette wrote: Raptors warp at 12 au/s though :pwn: nah it's 8: http://games.chruker.dk/eve_online/item.php?type_id=11178 if you rig them for warp speed then yeah you get the 12 but the trollceptor fit requires you to use small ionics instead to get enough distance to be effective
Veskrashen Justified Chaos Spaceship Bebop 766	Posted - 2015.03.10 03:44:16 - [1166] - Quote Zazad Antollare wrote: Veskrashen wrote: Zazad Antollare wrote: You people really dont get it, the best way to deal with this is not changing how interceptors work or how the link interacts with the ship, its making that the link works in a way that is equal to all ships so that no ship class is favored in the sov war. Exactly. Right now it does. No need to make special cases for those with high warp speeds or interdiction nullification properties. Right now its doesnt, you stick it in a BS you have a tanky link, you stick it in a interceptor you have a fast and manuveral link, that doesnt seem the same (plus you have ilimited uses on the link). the only thing it should change from ship to ship is how you deploy it (cloaky or brute force,etc) and how can you hold it, not the link itself Actually, it works exactly the same regardless of the platform you're using - activate link, wait out the first cycle, timer ticks down at the same rate after that. The fact that your choice of Link platform defines the problem for the defender to solve doesn't negate the fact that the Link module and capture mechanic remain exactly the same. We Gallente have a saying: "CCP created the Gallente Militia to train the Fighters..."
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 655	Posted - 2015.03.10 03:45:51 - [1167] - Quote Veskrashen wrote: 1. You're stuck on grid until the module finishes its cycle. You cannot disengage at will. 2. Buggering off to another structure only works if you can have 2+ minutes unmolested at the new structure to make progress. If someone arrives before then and you're forced to bugger off again, you make no progress and therefore waste their time. 3. I would buy the "covert cynos" bit if cloaky ships or cloaky nullified T3s were an issue in your eyes, but they're not. Which is totally reasonable - they're a lot easier to catch. But since those aren't an issue, it's the ability to avoid gatecamps that has your panties in a knot. you're not stuck on grid, you go very fast which allows you to evade anyone attacking you, burn off grid, then disengage at will also i am curious why you seem so miffed about the gatecamp GÇö-áif people want to put in some effort to keeping people out of their space, i feel like that is worthwhile you can also break gatecamps with sufficient pvp force so again i have to wonder why you hold them in such contempt
Veskrashen Justified Chaos Spaceship Bebop 766	Posted - 2015.03.10 03:48:19 - [1168] - Quote Promiscuous Female wrote: you're not stuck on grid, you go very fast which allows you to evade anyone attacking you, burn off grid, then disengage at will As noted before, there are a multitude of counters that are faster, can catch it, and kill it. Oh, and combat probes mean you land on grid with the target. Hi. Quote: also i am curious why you seem so miffed about the gatecamp GÇö-áif people want to put in some effort to keeping people out of their space, i feel like that is worthwhile you can also break gatecamps with sufficient pvp force so again i have to wonder why you hold them in such contempt I don't hold them in contempt. I simply note that the only thing - literally the only thing - that makes "Trollceptors" such a problem in your eyes is their ability to evade bubbled gatecamps. If it wasn't such an issue for you I wouldn't make such a big deal about it. We Gallente have a saying: "CCP created the Gallente Militia to train the Fighters..."
Kaarous Aldurald Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE. 12098	Posted - 2015.03.10 03:48:52 - [1169] - Quote Promiscuous Female wrote: you can also break gatecamps with sufficient pvp force so again i have to wonder why you hold them in such contempt Because they don't want to have "military superiority on grid". That's the origination of all of their arguments. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs.
Veskrashen Justified Chaos Spaceship Bebop 766	Posted - 2015.03.10 03:54:25 - [1170] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: you can also break gatecamps with sufficient pvp force so again i have to wonder why you hold them in such contempt Because they don't want to have "military superiority on grid". That's the origination of all of their arguments. Actually, the "military superiority on grid" is no problem at all. See, we feel we can achieve that even in the face of interceptors going 7km/sec. We don't think that Trollceptors are invincible boogiemen that can't be killed and can't be countered. Other folks with well-endowed toons seem to have an issue seeing beyond gatecamps as the only security measure that works. We Gallente have a saying: "CCP created the Gallente Militia to train the Fighters..."

Liam Inkuras AQUILA INC Verge of Collapse 1480	Posted - 2015.03.10 03:54:31 - [1171] - Quote Orthrus I wear my goggles at night. Any spelling/grammatical errors come complimentary with my typing on a phone
Alp Khan GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 295	Posted - 2015.03.10 03:54:46 - [1172] - Quote Alavaria Fera wrote: Lienzo wrote: It will be interesting to see what the change of direction will be if half the stations are freeports by December. Unlikely, as if anything random people will poke it to grab a station despite not having any intention to use, hold or defend it. In short, probably it will look like a great success with tons of little "sovtroll" sovholders who don't use the sov or anything or derive much value out of it at all. Op success! If the current trend of devs cooking up numbers goes on, The Wire could make a return and run a whole new season about CCP.
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 657	Posted - 2015.03.10 03:54:58 - [1173] - Quote Veskrashen wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: you're not stuck on grid, you go very fast which allows you to evade anyone attacking you, burn off grid, then disengage at will As noted before, there are a multitude of counters that are faster, can catch it, and kill it. Oh, and combat probes mean you land on grid with the target. Hi. Quote: also i am curious why you seem so miffed about the gatecamp GÇö-áif people want to put in some effort to keeping people out of their space, i feel like that is worthwhile you can also break gatecamps with sufficient pvp force so again i have to wonder why you hold them in such contempt I don't hold them in contempt. I simply note that the only thing - literally the only thing - that makes "Trollceptors" such a problem in your eyes is their ability to evade bubbled gatecamps. If it wasn't such an issue for you I wouldn't make such a big deal about it. combat probes appear on dscan interceptor sees combat probes, then disengages the only things faster than an interceptor rely on oversized prop mods that make your agility go to pot and require unbonused warp scramblers to turn off the interceptor's mwd what part of "interceptors can disengage at will" being the fulcrum of my concern is hard for you to understand
Veskrashen Justified Chaos Spaceship Bebop 766	Posted - 2015.03.10 04:03:15 - [1174] - Quote Promiscuous Female wrote: Veskrashen wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: you're not stuck on grid, you go very fast which allows you to evade anyone attacking you, burn off grid, then disengage at will As noted before, there are a multitude of counters that are faster, can catch it, and kill it. Oh, and combat probes mean you land on grid with the target. Hi. Quote: also i am curious why you seem so miffed about the gatecamp GÇö-áif people want to put in some effort to keeping people out of their space, i feel like that is worthwhile you can also break gatecamps with sufficient pvp force so again i have to wonder why you hold them in such contempt I don't hold them in contempt. I simply note that the only thing - literally the only thing - that makes "Trollceptors" such a problem in your eyes is their ability to evade bubbled gatecamps. If it wasn't such an issue for you I wouldn't make such a big deal about it. combat probes appear on dscan interceptor sees combat probes, then disengages the only things faster than an interceptor rely on oversized prop mods that make your agility go to pot and require unbonused warp scramblers to turn off the interceptor's mwd what part of "interceptors can disengage at will" being the fulcrum of my concern is hard for you to understand It's not at all hard to understand. You keep using the phrase "disengage at will". I do not think it means what you think it means. 1. You don't get to disengage once combat probes appear on scan. You have to wait for your Link to finish the cycle before you can warp off. 2. Oversized prop mods do indeed allow a solo, unsupported pilot to outrun a speed fit interceptor. Since you're in somone else's home, however, there is a very high probability indeed they will have boosts and/or implants that you don't have. Which means that even if they're not using oversized prop fits, they'll STILL be faster than you. After all, a boosted Inty will be able to catch and murder your Trollceptor. 3. You, of course, ignore the combat probe + fast locking long range gun fits, or the oversized prop + long range gun fits. Which, of course can generally murder you in less than 20 seconds, meaning they have a 5/6 chance of you having enough time left on your Entosis Link to kill you before you can disengage. 4. Points 1-3 above mean a single pilot with an appropriate fit - fast, long range guns, combat probes... like a 10mn MWD Beam Confessor, for example - can easily deny an entire system's worth of objectives to a Trollceptor gang. They will either get caught and killed, or be forced to disengage before making any progress towards RFing a objective. The fact that these simple things are incomprehensible to you is not the issue of anyone but yourself. We Gallente have a saying: "CCP created the Gallente Militia to train the Fighters..."
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 658	Posted - 2015.03.10 04:11:14 - [1175] - Quote Veskrashen wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: Veskrashen wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: you're not stuck on grid, you go very fast which allows you to evade anyone attacking you, burn off grid, then disengage at will As noted before, there are a multitude of counters that are faster, can catch it, and kill it. Oh, and combat probes mean you land on grid with the target. Hi. Quote: also i am curious why you seem so miffed about the gatecamp GÇö-áif people want to put in some effort to keeping people out of their space, i feel like that is worthwhile you can also break gatecamps with sufficient pvp force so again i have to wonder why you hold them in such contempt I don't hold them in contempt. I simply note that the only thing - literally the only thing - that makes "Trollceptors" such a problem in your eyes is their ability to evade bubbled gatecamps. If it wasn't such an issue for you I wouldn't make such a big deal about it. combat probes appear on dscan interceptor sees combat probes, then disengages the only things faster than an interceptor rely on oversized prop mods that make your agility go to pot and require unbonused warp scramblers to turn off the interceptor's mwd what part of "interceptors can disengage at will" being the fulcrum of my concern is hard for you to understand It's not at all hard to understand. You keep using the phrase "disengage at will". I do not think it means what you think it means. 1. You don't get to disengage once combat probes appear on scan. You have to wait for your Link to finish the cycle before you can warp off. 2. Oversized prop mods do indeed allow a solo, unsupported pilot to outrun a speed fit interceptor. Since you're in somone else's home, however, there is a very high probability indeed they will have boosts and/or implants that you don't have. Which means that even if they're not using oversized prop fits, they'll STILL be faster than you. After all, a boosted Inty will be able to catch and murder your Trollceptor. 3. You, of course, ignore the combat probe + fast locking long range gun fits, or the oversized prop + long range gun fits. Which, of course can generally murder you in less than 20 seconds, meaning they have a 5/6 chance of you having enough time left on your Entosis Link to kill you before you can disengage. 4. Points 1-3 above mean a single pilot with an appropriate fit - fast, long range guns, combat probes... like a 10mn MWD Beam Confessor, for example - can easily deny an entire system's worth of objectives to a Trollceptor gang. They will either get caught and killed, or be forced to disengage before making any progress towards RFing a objective. The fact that these simple things are incomprehensible to you is not the issue of anyone but yourself. your vignette is overly complicated and requires too many coincidences to converge to be even remotely tenable, sorry a world where at least 2b isk in booster ships and specialized anti-frigate ships is required to successfully counter a 20m isk ship and being able to pull that together in under two minutes is pretty laffeaux then multiply the numbers of these setups by the number of interceptors buzzing around your space and you see where the breakage lies also you may be self-pointed by the entosis link but you can still burn off grid, whereupon you wait for the remaining timer to elapse, then warp off you are also assuming that the entosis link module will continue to cycle if you break lock (by moving out of your lock range,) which we can't even say right now
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 658	Posted - 2015.03.10 04:16:02 - [1176] - Quote while this system shares some blood with faction warfare, it's not faction warfare there are no acceleration gates forcing all contenders into a tiny spit of space where they can be engaged at will you have to try a little harder in 0.0
Alp Khan GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 295	Posted - 2015.03.10 04:27:32 - [1177] - Quote Veskrashen wrote: It's not at all hard to understand. You keep using the phrase "disengage at will". I do not think it means what you think it means. 1. You don't get to disengage once combat probes appear on scan. You have to wait for your Link to finish the cycle before you can warp off. 2. Oversized prop mods do indeed allow a solo, unsupported pilot to outrun a speed fit interceptor. Since you're in somone else's home, however, there is a very high probability indeed they will have boosts and/or implants that you don't have. Which means that even if they're not using oversized prop fits, they'll STILL be faster than you. After all, a boosted Inty will be able to catch and murder your Trollceptor. 3. You, of course, ignore the combat probe + fast locking long range gun fits, or the oversized prop + long range gun fits. Which, of course can generally murder you in less than 20 seconds, meaning they have a 5/6 chance of you having enough time left on your Entosis Link to kill you before you can disengage. 4. Points 1-3 above mean a single pilot with an appropriate fit - fast, long range guns, combat probes... like a 10mn MWD Beam Confessor, for example - can easily deny an entire system's worth of objectives to a Trollceptor gang. They will either get caught and killed, or be forced to disengage before making any progress towards RFing a objective. The fact that these simple things are incomprehensible to you is not the issue of anyone but yourself. I'll give you a free pointers: Have you ever heard about grids? Grid-fu? Apparently not, and you should. As long as the trollceptor can continue to burn away, for all intents and purposes, it will find itself in a situation that's as safe as warping away. Outrunning an interceptor with an oversized prop mods towards one vector is one thing. When doing that, you don't need to change direction, so oversized prop mod taking your agility away is not an issue. However, we are talking here about an interceptor outrunning a ship fitted with an outsized prop mod. The other ship might be capable of reaching higher speeds than the interceptor, but it will not be able to change direction and turn as good as the interceptor, so, by changing it's course, the interceptor will always be able to stay at range even though it might be slower of the two. And please do tell us more about how a gun will be able to track a frigate going at almost 8km/s. You're welcome.
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 15448	Posted - 2015.03.10 04:28:14 - [1178] - Quote People seem to be making the same wrong assumption over and over in this thread. When we say trollcepters can disengage at will we do not mean they warp off. Intercepters are fast enough to be able pull range on any sniper boat you care to bring ofter before it can even land out of warp. Said cepter can then burn off grid and simply vanish from the snipers overview. By the time you probe it down and warp to it it will be out of range again. This is why nobody ever bothers to probe these things down today. Breaking through a gatecamp is not why dislike trollcepters as there is a large number of ships that can do that. Anything with a cov ops cloak can do that easily enough and most small gangs will fight their way in. What we hate is the idea of day after day of having to deal with cepters you likely cant catch for 4 hours. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
Sibyyl Gallente Federation 23777	Posted - 2015.03.10 04:36:55 - [1179] - Quote Edit: reading comprehension fail on my part. gf baltec Friendship is the best ship Sabriz for CSM go go go
Lena Lazair Khanid Irregulars Khanid's Legion 424	Posted - 2015.03.10 04:59:46 - [1180] - Quote Veskrashen wrote: 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. Except as described, you can't. One active deployable per pilot. Ironically, this mechanic actually ties the attacker to the state of the target grid MORE than the "ship on grid" method. Attacker's ship is destroyed? Module e-link: they are now free to contest sov anywhere after they reship (which is not nearly the burden you claim it will be). Deployable e-link: they still can't deploy a new one until the fate of their previous one on the initial target grid is resolved (either destroyed, self-destructs, or finishes cycling and is scooped). In fact, this lets the defenders gain control of the grid and lock down the ability for the troll to affect ANY sov for potentially hours (just depending on whatever the deployable self-destruct timer is set to... though 2hrs or so seems reasonable). If the defender wants to take the risk of leaving the hostile deployable on grid but paused with a defensive one of their own, on the gamble that they can hold grid or destroy both before being forced off grid, they can. At this point the attacker cannot drop a new deployable until the self-destruct timer on the original runs out, so potentially several hours of being tied to the fate of the grid they tried to troll. In short, it ties the attacker to the grid even more than requiring the ship to stay on grid would, and makes them commit actual ISK and possibly time in a way far riskier than a module on a ship does. All while having very little impact on actual fleets duking out grid control for sov. Except for some potentially interesting bait/ambush mechanics and locking out deployable options during control node contests, potentially.

Kaarous Aldurald Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE. 12098	Posted - 2015.03.10 05:02:34 - [1181] - Quote PotatoOverdose wrote: baltec1 wrote: People seem to be making the same wrong assumption over and over in this thread. When we say trollcepters can disengage at will we do not mean they warp off. And in other news today, fast ships can in fact disengage from fights in eve online. This has come as a shock and surprise to many veteran sov fighters across the cluster. Notable cfc Megathron enthusiast Baltec had this to say: "Oh, so that's* why they've been fitting prop mods to their cynabals!"* GÇª This has been a presentation of Part of our Cluster, Tonight. Goodnight! Sarcasm aside, please explain why you think people should be able to kite their way into sov instead of actually fighting for it. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs.
Lena Lazair Khanid Irregulars Khanid's Legion 424	Posted - 2015.03.10 05:04:56 - [1182] - Quote Zazad Antollare wrote: You people really dont get it, the best way to deal with this is not changing how interceptors work or how the link interacts with the ship, its making that the link works in a way that is equal to all ships so that no ship class is favored in the sov war. Agreed; best way to do THAT is to make it a deployable :)
PotatoOverdose Royal Black Watch Highlanders DARKNESS. 2649	Posted - 2015.03.10 05:09:28 - [1183] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: PotatoOverdose wrote: And in other news today, fast ships can in fact disengage from fights in eve online. This has come as a shock and surprise to many veteran sov fighters across the cluster. Notable cfc Megathron enthusiast Baltec had this to say: "Oh, so that's* why they've been fitting prop mods to their cynabals!"* GÇª This has been a presentation of Part of our Cluster, Tonight. Goodnight! Sarcasm aside, please explain why you think people should be able to kite their way into sov instead of actually fighting for it. Later this evening, long time forumite and awox proponent Kaarous Aldurald claims "Kiting isn't fighting." We have the inside scoop. Also, we interview elo knight, who recently trashed yet another SMA ishtar fleet with his kiting cynabal doctrine. That and more, tonight at eleven.
Alexander McKeon Blackwater USA Inc. Pandemic Legion 94	Posted - 2015.03.10 05:14:27 - [1184] - Quote Can we please stop obsessing over interceptors for a few minutes and get back to focusing on the root causes of why defending even well used space will be problematic? You're getting stuck on one point and lost sight of the proverbial forest. I understand the goal of making unused space easy to take from absentee landlords, but if the defender wishes to truly hold their space, every system would need the kind of around the clock population as say, BUZ or GE- to consistently prevent reinforcement timers from being initiated. Not only is that simply impossible for anything resembling even a regional power, current nullsec income can't support it. I know an income rebalance is in the works, but asking people to defend their space under the new system without giving them reason to do so is flawed. As it stands, it is far too easy to reinforce a large area of moderately occupied space repeatedly and blue ball the defenders until they tire of the game.
SilentAsTheGrave Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective 89	Posted - 2015.03.10 05:19:53 - [1185] - Quote Alexander McKeon wrote: Can we please stop obsessing over interceptors for a few minutes and get back to focusing on the root causes of why defending even well used space will be problematic? You're getting stuck on one point and lost sight of the proverbial forest. I understand the goal of making unused space easy to take from absentee landlords, but if the defender wishes to truly hold their space, every system would need the kind of around the clock population as say, BUZ or GE- to consistently prevent reinforcement timers from being initiated. Not only is that simply impossible for anything resembling even a regional power, current nullsec income can't support it. I know an income rebalance is in the works, but asking people to defend their space under the new system without giving them reason to do so is flawed. As it stands, it is far too easy to reinforce a large area of moderately occupied space repeatedly and blue ball the defenders until they tire of the game. What is the problem with just showing up during the alliance prime time window to defend the sov?
Kaarous Aldurald Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE. 12098	Posted - 2015.03.10 05:19:56 - [1186] - Quote Alexander McKeon wrote: Can we please stop obsessing over interceptors for a few minutes and get back to focusing on the root causes of why defending even well used space will be problematic? You're getting stuck on one point and lost sight of the proverbial forest. I understand the goal of making unused space easy to take from absentee landlords, but if the defender wishes to truly hold their space, every system would need the kind of around the clock population as say, BUZ or GE- to consistently prevent reinforcement timers from being initiated. Not only is that simply impossible for anything resembling even a regional power, current nullsec income can't support it. I know an income rebalance is in the works, but asking people to defend their space under the new system without giving them reason to do so is flawed. As it stands, it is far too easy to reinforce a large area of moderately occupied space repeatedly and blue ball the defenders until they tire of the game. Those are good points. But this is the Entosis Link and ship balancing thread. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs.
Kaarous Aldurald Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE. 12098	Posted - 2015.03.10 05:21:35 - [1187] - Quote SilentAsTheGrave wrote: What is the problem with just showing up during the alliance prime time window to defend the sov? While I hate adding to the derailment of the thread... If that's your actual prime time, and you have to babysit your TCU for four hour per day... When are you supposed to actually play the game? "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 1448	Posted - 2015.03.10 05:21:39 - [1188] - Quote Alexander McKeon wrote: Can we please stop obsessing over interceptors for a few minutes and get back to focusing on the root causes of why defending even well used space will be problematic? This would be nice; alas, we are in the Entosis Link posting ghetto. This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
PotatoOverdose Royal Black Watch Highlanders DARKNESS. 2649	Posted - 2015.03.10 05:30:43 - [1189] - Quote Alexander McKeon wrote: Can we please stop obsessing over interceptors for a few minutes and get back to focusing on the root causes of why defending even well used space will be problematic? You're getting stuck on one point and lost sight of the proverbial forest. I understand the goal of making unused space easy to take from absentee landlords, but if the defender wishes to truly hold their space, every system would need the kind of around the clock population as say, BUZ or GE- to consistently prevent reinforcement timers from being initiated. Not only is that simply impossible for anything resembling even a regional power, current nullsec income can't support it. I know an income rebalance is in the works, but asking people to defend their space under the new system without giving them reason to do so is flawed. As it stands, it is far too easy to reinforce a large area of moderately occupied space repeatedly and blue ball the defenders until they tire of the game. Many valid points here actually, and I'm not a fan of many aspects of entosis link gameplay. While we're on the subject of round the clock population as it pertains to entosis link gameplay, my main problems with the new sov system is that it encourages alliances to subdivide based on regional and national groups due to time zone differences and the proposed 4 hour primetime. Personally, I like the fact that in alliance or corp, I get to meet and exchange view points with people from across the world - I can talk to a guy from Perth (Australia) and Amsterdam (Netherlands) at the same time, and then go roaming with them in the off-hours. The proposed entosis link changes dis-incentivize this, which is detrimental to the community as a whole. I'd like to discuss these things, unfortunately a certain alliance seems dead set on making this yet another thread about interceptors.....
SilentAsTheGrave Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective 89	Posted - 2015.03.10 05:48:10 - [1190] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: SilentAsTheGrave wrote: What is the problem with just showing up during the alliance prime time window to defend the sov? While I hate adding to the derailment of the thread... If that's your actual prime time, and you have to babysit your TCU for four hour per day... When are you supposed to actually play the game? Ok forget about the prime time thing. What about me expanding on the idea of fuel? Top of page 50.

Aiyshimin Fistful of Finns Triumvirate. 449	Posted - 2015.03.10 05:53:16 - [1191] - Quote The link cycle times should be reversed, and be separated into two different modules with each having proper T2 versions with the usual fitting and cap use drawbacks to balance their advantages. Numbers used for illustrative purposes only and don't represent months of planning and testing. Entosis Connector I range 20km, cycle time 5min Entosis Connector II range 25km, cycle time 4min Entosis Link I range 200km, cycle time 10min Entosis Link II range 250km, cycle time 8min Higher positional risk, shorter exposure. Doesn't this feel more balanced?
Vigilanta S0utherN Comfort DARKNESS. 112	Posted - 2015.03.10 05:54:27 - [1192] - Quote In all honesty, I think you may be starting in the wrong place. The entosis modules balance is tied in heavily with vulnerability mechanics for systems. I think that is where you really need to conisder starting in order to properly balance the entosis module. Essentially you need to start with the begging of the system, vulnerability and work your way along the capture process balancing each step after vulnerability according the the previous steps. One of the hardest and most fiercely debated topics is and will be the vulnerability mechanics once you have that nailed down you can then start working on the entosis module, then the # of timers and duration of timers, then the exit timers and command node battles (which will tie in somewhat to entosis mechanics). While this may be perceived as a bit off topic, I hope you see the logic in what i'm trying to convey. The main goals in my mind are this. 1. Ensure a vibrant system where attacker and defender can fight each other in a meaningful way, that encourages PVP, not PVS (Player versus structures ./ command nodes) 2. Reduce to an extent possible troll reinforcement, without significantly discouraging real sov warfare. 3. Give the defender an advantage without making attacking a fruitless effort I think as it stands all 3 of these are not really being achieved. They can happen under the proposed system, but as currently proposed it just doesn't really gel. So basically work on the vulnerability, the 4 hour window must go. 24 hours, or some sort of scaled window seem to be the better option for a worldwide single shard game. Vulnerability shouldn't just happen because of time of day, there needs to be some sort of gameplay to induce vulnerability whether thats a single use structure that creates a vulnerable state in the system or some other more brilliant mechanic im incapable of thinking of (perhaps a new deploy able?). If you put in some sort of vulnerability enducing mechanic besides time of day, it is much easier to balance goals 1 2 and 3 and the entosis gameplay. I.E. entosising doesn't need to be a long process for initial reinforcement, you cant just reinforce any system just because your in a ceptor/claoky whatever with the module fit and no one happens to be looking at that moment. And you create a better fight starting mechanic than currently exists without leaving out as many timezones or any timezones. Hopefully this comes across as well thought out. Not syaing I have the perfect solution, but the problem isnt as much the entosis module and how its used as much as it is the mechanics that govern when it can be used.
Alavaria Fera GoonWaffe 6602	Posted - 2015.03.10 05:55:40 - [1193] - Quote Querns wrote: Alexander McKeon wrote: Can we please stop obsessing over interceptors for a few minutes and get back to focusing on the root causes of why defending even well used space will be problematic? This would be nice; alas, we are in the Entosis Link posting ghetto. We're approaching the 0.0 Dream Ruins. Please equip your entosis link, just in case any sov remains... ^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears. Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 661	Posted - 2015.03.10 05:56:18 - [1194] - Quote PotatoOverdose wrote: I'd like to discuss these things, unfortunately a certain alliance seems dead set on making this yet another thread about interceptors..... yeah how dare we post about ship balance in this thread oh wait oh it has the phrase "ship balance" in the thread title ohhhh it's the posting ghetto for the topic ohhhhhhhhh
Alavaria Fera GoonWaffe 6602	Posted - 2015.03.10 05:56:56 - [1195] - Quote Vigilanta wrote: So basically work on the vulnerability, the 4 hour window must go. 24 hours, or some sort of scaled window seem to be the better option for a worldwide single shard game. Vulnerability shouldn't just happen because of time of day, there needs to be some sort of gameplay to induce vulnerability whether thats a single use structure that creates a vulnerable state in the system or some other more brilliant mechanic im incapable of thinking of (perhaps a new deploy able?). Ah yess, An EntosisImmunity Blockade Unit: deploy at >50% of gates to make the sov structures vulnerable to entosis links. ^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears. Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 662	Posted - 2015.03.10 05:57:54 - [1196] - Quote also wow [MY 5S] victor, i am crushing this thread
Vigilanta S0utherN Comfort DARKNESS. 112	Posted - 2015.03.10 05:59:53 - [1197] - Quote Veskrashen wrote: Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: you can also break gatecamps with sufficient pvp force so again i have to wonder why you hold them in such contempt Because they don't want to have "military superiority on grid". That's the origination of all of their arguments. Actually, the "military superiority on grid" is no problem at all. See, we feel we can achieve that even in the face of interceptors going 7km/sec. We don't think that Trollceptors are invincible boogiemen that can't be killed and can't be countered. Other folks with well-endowed toons seem to have an issue seeing beyond gatecamps as the only security measure that works. Its less that they are invincible boogeyman and more that as currently written you have to do nothing but defend sov for 4 hours fo the day from any tom **** and harry that decides they want to reinforce it for the lulz, Sov warfare should require more effort than that. The old tower sov system is far superior to what is proposed here.
Vigilanta S0utherN Comfort DARKNESS. 112	Posted - 2015.03.10 06:02:06 - [1198] - Quote Alavaria Fera wrote: Vigilanta wrote: So basically work on the vulnerability, the 4 hour window must go. 24 hours, or some sort of scaled window seem to be the better option for a worldwide single shard game. Vulnerability shouldn't just happen because of time of day, there needs to be some sort of gameplay to induce vulnerability whether thats a single use structure that creates a vulnerable state in the system or some other more brilliant mechanic im incapable of thinking of (perhaps a new deploy able?). Ah yess, An EntosisImmunity Blockade Unit: deploy at >50% of gates to make the sov structures vulnerable to entosis links. Doesn't need to reflect SBU mechanics in my mind. Though i actually like the SBu mechanics as they generated good fights more often than not and gave each side ample time to fight each other which often occurred. But there needs to be something more to encourage actual warfare instead of cat and mouse, and what we have right now is very cat and mouse.
Alavaria Fera GoonWaffe 6602	Posted - 2015.03.10 06:04:06 - [1199] - Quote Vigilanta wrote: Veskrashen wrote: Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: you can also break gatecamps with sufficient pvp force so again i have to wonder why you hold them in such contempt Because they don't want to have "military superiority on grid". That's the origination of all of their arguments. Actually, the "military superiority on grid" is no problem at all. See, we feel we can achieve that even in the face of interceptors going 7km/sec. We don't think that Trollceptors are invincible boogiemen that can't be killed and can't be countered. Other folks with well-endowed toons seem to have an issue seeing beyond gatecamps as the only security measure that works. Its less that they are invincible boogeyman and more that as currently written you have to do nothing but defend sov for 4 hours fo the day from any tom **** and harry that decides they want to reinforce it for the lulz, Sov warfare should require more effort than that. The old tower sov system is far superior to what is proposed here. Towers are now not only able to defend themselves (somewhat) but also can have more ehp than sov structures and cannot be shot by supercarriers. Pretty nice, all things considered. ^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears. Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
Vigilanta S0utherN Comfort DARKNESS. 112	Posted - 2015.03.10 06:09:52 - [1200] - Quote Quote: Towers are now not only able to defend themselves (somewhat) but also can have more ehp than sov structures and cannot be shot by supercarriers. Pretty nice, all things considered. Im not sure if your in somewhat agreeing with me or being sarcastic lol. I wasn't nessicarly suggesting a return of the tower warfare days, just that there were some good things about it. 1. Easy to understand. 2. if you knew what you were doign you could heavily influence exit timers. 3. Multiple objectives within 1 system. 4. lots of potential fight creation. 5. had a nice scaling effect at controlling sov footprints. That said the EHP would be a bit nuts even with today's dread counts and the barrier of entry to smaller alliances is a bit high. But it creates good cap warefare incentives as well as subcap warfare incentives. But again, im not saying OMG BRING BACK TOWER WARFARE. Im saying incorporate elements of the previous 2 sov systems that were good and spice them up with the better mechanics of the new system. EDIt: And i am now completly off topic of entosis gameplay.

Alavaria Fera GoonWaffe 6602	Posted - 2015.03.10 06:11:03 - [1201] - Quote Oh I was just commenting on the fact when the sov structures got their ehp nerfed, towers are now the big hard targets (especially Large ones with tons of hardeners, etc) It is rather appropriate since they are in many cases the moneymakers (ie: money moons). Also, you can siphon them of course ^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears. Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
Dras Malar Cloak and Daggers Fidelas Constans 7	Posted - 2015.03.10 06:18:38 - [1202] - Quote This update does the opposite of what nullsec needs. Having an arbitrarily defined alliance-wide primetime does not incentivize diversity. The real problem is that there's no longer any risk-reward calculation in this system. By turning sov into a game of laser tag there's no use at all for dreadnoughts anymore. There's no reason to risk anything valuable on the field when you're only trying to aim a laser at a thing until the other guy leaves grid; you can do that with moderately priced cruisers. The likely scenario is that we'll just be able to drag out fights past the end of the window and force a stalemate at long range without any meaningful fights happening. It's like CCP wants nullsec to just not exist. They seem to hate everything about large alliances and coalitions even though that's what makes this game unique, so they're trying to force our gameplay to change in a way they like better without understanding what we already have or what the changes would actually mean for us.
knobber Jobbler Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 526	Posted - 2015.03.10 06:20:01 - [1203] - Quote Acuma wrote: knobber Jobbler wrote: Acuma wrote: Seems mostly that only the goonies are afraid of trollceptors.......even with their "superior numbers" and their "we'll burn null sec to the ground if this is allowed." Wonder why that is? Too much space? To many renters? Afraid of spread out fights instead of blobs? All it takes is a tanked out maller alt sitting on a structure......ya'll don't have alts? Do you like the idea of the 1000 Goon sov laser raid on all and sundry? Because it will happen and it will be funny. Also, stop being bitter because we're right, just like the tech nerf, just like the sentry nerf. I cherish the idea. You waste a ton of time and are countered by a single person with a few minutes? How long can you keep that up? That's just to RF a structure.....you actually have to come back LOL. You either don't get it or you're trying to be funny and score internet points rather unsuccessfully.
Alavaria Fera GoonWaffe 6602	Posted - 2015.03.10 06:25:24 - [1204] - Quote Dras Malar wrote: It's like CCP wants nullsec to just not exist. They seem to hate everything about large alliances and coalitions even though that's what makes this game unique, so they're trying to force our gameplay to change in a way they like better without understanding what we already have or what the changes would actually mean for us. Between our 0.0 dreams and their 0.0 vision, it's obvious who can force the other to submit. We're not going to win here, it's time to just give in and check out. Maybe fweddit will lead a new coalition to take over factional sovereignty and we can be their pets ^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears. Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
Sigras Conglomo 1014	Posted - 2015.03.10 06:39:01 - [1205] - Quote Sibyyl wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: interceptor sees combat probes, then disengages No. CCP Fozzie wrote: You can't cancel an entosis link until the end of the cycle. Source. Are you saying you can't kill an interceptor that can't warp out? Can we all drop this tired argument? that doesnt mean you cant fly out of range... My Malediction does 3.5 km/s combat fit without links implants or heat. In the 15 seconds from the time i see you on d-scan to the time you can lock me I can be out of your range. IMHO skirmish ships do not constitute "effective military control" of a grid if they constantly have to run away... For that reason I feel that the entosis link should disable propulsion mods the same way the HIC bubble does.
Alavaria Fera GoonWaffe 6602	Posted - 2015.03.10 06:47:10 - [1206] - Quote Sigras wrote: Sibyyl wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: interceptor sees combat probes, then disengages No. CCP Fozzie wrote: You can't cancel an entosis link until the end of the cycle. Source. Are you saying you can't kill an interceptor that can't warp out? Can we all drop this tired argument? that doesnt mean you cant fly out of range... My Malediction does 3.5 km/s combat fit without links implants or heat. In the 15 seconds from the time i see you on d-scan to the time you can lock me I can be out of your range. IMHO skirmish ships do not constitute "effective military control" of a grid if they constantly have to run away... For that reason I feel that the entosis link should disable propulsion mods the same way the HIC bubble does. Who knows... there's been all kinds of ridiculous arguments about what "effective military control" is even supposed to mean. It basically means "whatever satisfies ccp's 0.0 vision of a fight" even if apparently it's 1 interceptor lasering a structure, or 1 ship chasing a 1 ceptor, or perhaps 1 ship being unable to chase 1 ceptor (does it have a laser as well?) ^^ 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 06:48:39 - [1207] - Quote Sigras wrote: For that reason I feel that the entosis link should disable propulsion mods the same way the HIC bubble does. Would they also lose 80% of their mass like a HIC bubble, so a friend in another interceptor can do a high-speed bump and send it flying?
Sibyyl Gallente Federation 23783	Posted - 2015.03.10 07:00:46 - [1208] - Quote Sigras wrote: that doesnt mean you cant fly out of range... My Malediction does 3.5 km/s combat fit without links implants or heat. In the 15 seconds from the time i see you on d-scan to the time you can lock me I can be out of your range. IMHO skirmish ships do not constitute "effective military control" of a grid if they constantly have to run away... For that reason I feel that the entosis link should disable propulsion mods the same way the HIC bubble does. I made my edit 2 hours before you hit post 2 pages later (my edit came before the post right under mine). You really should check it before responding. Sibyyl at 2015.03.10 04:40 wrote: Edit: reading comprehension fail on my part. gf baltec Friendship is the best ship Sabriz for CSM go go go
Carniflex StarHunt Mordus Angels 323	Posted - 2015.03.10 07:47:21 - [1209] - Quote Ranafal wrote: OMFG, 40 pages and still no solution for trollceptor? 1) Just allow to anchor one (only one) sentry gun near every object which can be "reinforced". 2) This sentry gun should be extremely simple, and very similar to gate ones - it just applies 100% of its damage at distance up to 250km and ignores completely target's speed, transversal, signature etc. 3) This sentry gun should do LOW dps, probably about 100-200 dps and have about 1000 EHP, so 1-2 ceptors and 1-2 logsits should be able to kill it easily in several minutes (or just ignore its dps). Of course it can be killed without any reinforce - just as a usual ship in space. 4) But it will still not allow a _single_ trollceptor to get his entosis link start capture because 2 minutes mean that trollceptor will get several thousands of damage before capture will start - and this damage and dps will not depend on trollceptor speed, signature, distance etc. 5) You can also add some reasonable conditions for anchoring this sentry gun - say, Anchoring 5lvl, and strategic index >=2. You can also require to own TCU in the given system to be able to anchor such sentry near every reinforceabe object. This will make sense in having TCU, strategic index, skills. There has been posted quite a number of ways to counter a trollceptor over these 40 pages actually. Here, sanity... niiiice sanity, come to daddy... okay, that's a good sanity... THWONK! GOT the bastard.
SilentAsTheGrave Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective 92	Posted - 2015.03.10 08:03:37 - [1210] - Quote I guess I will post it again and maybe it won't be drowned out in tears and rage: In regards to the Entosis Link using fuel: I think this is a good idea. Using one Strontium every time you turn the module on would do a few good things. As Mike pointed out earlier along with the original people I'm sure; it would mean there is some form of logistics taking place to contest these systems. Especially when it comes to the outer lying systems. Smaller ships, such as interceptors hint hint, will have to be somewhat selective on what systems to contest and how many times they are willing to try to contest it. If they find themselves dealing with actual defenders active in the system and negating their Entosis Link with their own, they will have wasted time and will need to move on. Even if super zippy, untouchable (allegedly... ) ships do their thing, they can only do it so long before they run out of fuel. The defenders have the luxary of nearby stations and POS's that are common for alliances that own sov to resupply their Entosis Links. Overdrive Injectors, which is used to gain fast speed, have a penalty to cargo space. Food for thought. If players do not like the idea of having to resupply so often with small fast ships, they can use larger ships with bigger cargo bays. These larger ships tend to be much, much slower than tiny fast frigates. Getting the picture now? What the over all effect is it still means abandoned systems can still be captured just as easy as this new sov system wants, without having to subject itself to the mythical Trollceptors that terrorize the dreams of certain groups. What are your thoughts?

Aiyshimin Fistful of Finns Triumvirate. 449	Posted - 2015.03.10 08:08:43 - [1211] - Quote SilentAsTheGrave wrote: I guess I will post it again and maybe it won't be drowned out in tears and rage: In regards to the Entosis Link using fuel: I think this is a good idea. Using one Strontium every time you turn the module on would do a few good things. As Mike pointed out earlier along with the original people I'm sure; it would mean there is some form of logistics taking place to contest these systems. Especially when it comes to the outer lying systems. Smaller ships, such as interceptors hint hint, will have to be somewhat selective on what systems to contest and how many times they are willing to try to contest it. If they find themselves dealing with actual defenders active in the system and negating their Entosis Link with their own, they will have wasted time and will need to move on. Even if super zippy, untouchable (allegedly... ) ships do their thing, they can only do it so long before they run out of fuel. The defenders have the luxary of nearby stations and POS's that are common for alliances that own sov to resupply their Entosis Links. Overdrive Injectors, which is used to gain fast speed, have a penalty to cargo space. Food for thought. If players do not like the idea of having to resupply so often with small fast ships, they can use larger ships with bigger cargo bays. These larger ships tend to be much, much slower than tiny fast frigates. Getting the picture now? What the over all effect is it still means abandoned systems can still be captured just as easy as this new sov system wants, without having to subject itself to the mythical Trollceptors that terrorize the dreams of certain groups. What are your thoughts? Entosis fuel is a good idea. +1
Wanda Fayne Gurlz with Gunz 55	Posted - 2015.03.10 08:12:10 - [1212] - Quote SilentAsTheGrave wrote: I guess I will post it again and maybe it won't be drowned out in tears and rage: In regards to the Entosis Link using fuel: I think this is a good idea. Using one Strontium every time you turn the module on would do a few good things. As Mike pointed out earlier along with the original people I'm sure; it would mean there is some form of logistics taking place to contest these systems. Especially when it comes to the outer lying systems. Smaller ships, such as interceptors hint hint, will have to be somewhat selective on what systems to contest and how many times they are willing to try to contest it. If they find themselves dealing with actual defenders active in the system and negating their Entosis Link with their own, they will have wasted time and will need to move on. Even if super zippy, untouchable (allegedly... ) ships do their thing, they can only do it so long before they run out of fuel. The defenders have the luxary of nearby stations and POS's that are common for alliances that own sov to resupply their Entosis Links. Overdrive Injectors, which is used to gain fast speed, have a penalty to cargo space. Food for thought. If players do not like the idea of having to resupply so often with small fast ships, they can use larger ships with bigger cargo bays. These larger ships tend to be much, much slower than tiny fast frigates. Getting the picture now? What the over all effect is it still means abandoned systems can still be captured just as easy as this new sov system wants, without having to subject itself to the mythical Trollceptors that terrorize the dreams of certain groups. What are your thoughts? Agreed +1
Xavier Azabu Fluid Motion Confederation of xXPIZZAXx 15	Posted - 2015.03.10 08:18:16 - [1213] - Quote I think that this is all getting overly complicated. The Entosis Links system doesn't seem like a bad mechanic. But I'd simply restrict them to Cruiser-sized hulls and above. Adding more resources etc., doesn't sound like a fix. I love the idea of Command Nodes and spreading out the fight. But that is where the main issue with the interceptors is. The main reason to me is the warp speed differences between hulls. Simply put, Frigates and Destroyers are too fast and will be used too often to capture the command nodes. Alliances will use smaller hulls to more quickly take over the Command Nodes. Larger hulls will become more obsolete for sov-fights and will have very little use. Alliances with more members will have a huge advantage at quickly capturing command nodes without as much thought being put into fleet composition and tactics. Create a hull size requirement for Entosis Links and suddenly your fleet cannot instawarp past gatecamps or bubbled gates. You have to either fight through or bridge past somehow. There would be more reason to use titan-bridges or jump bridges to move defensive fleets into position over nodes. Yes, interceptors could be killed on grid with all sorts of light missile / fast tracking ships like Talwars, Muninns or even Algoses but you don't want the whole meta to be revolved around countering travel 'ceptors with Entosis Links.
Sigras Conglomo 1014	Posted - 2015.03.10 08:22:22 - [1214] - Quote Arrendis wrote: Sigras wrote: IMHO skirmish ships do not constitute "effective military control" of a grid if they constantly have to run away... For that reason I feel that the entosis link should disable propulsion mods the same way the HIC bubble does. Would they also lose 80% of their mass like a HIC bubble, so a friend in another interceptor can do a high-speed bump and send it flying? Im not really sure why the HIC bubble reduces mass like that, but that isnt what I meant... No prop mod, no remote assistance
Dave Stark 7429	Posted - 2015.03.10 08:32:54 - [1215] - Quote ok. just ******* scrap the entowhatsit link entirely. if you are on grid, within x distance of the capture node and uncloaked - the node behaves like you have a link active on it under the proposed system. last man standing on the grid gets to start capturing the node. this reflects the "who has control of the grid" malarky. not actually having to fit anything extra to ships means there's literally 0 affect on what ships to pick or how to fit them other than whatever the fotm is. it's easy to understand - if you (or your alliance) are the last and only men standing on the grid you start capturing the node. simplicity in itself. essentially, it's just king of the hill but i don't really see a problem with that.
Jori McKie TURN LEFT The Camel Empire 218	Posted - 2015.03.10 08:40:42 - [1216] - Quote Many have already mentioned it, there should be a balance in effort for both Attacker/Defender. Suggestion: The entosis link needs cap booster charges to run. (like the ASB) You have several options to balance this. - Activating the Entosis link consumes 1x charge and runs forever until it is deactivated or interrupted. Or make it time based, e.g. 1x charge is good for x minutes. - The charge size matters, e.g. only 400 cap booster can be used for an Entosis link. That means Ceptors have only x attempts to use an Entosis link before they have to get more cap booster from a cloak hauler/whatever. You can't run amok with like 500 Ceptors for an unlimited amount time but you could if you put a lot of effort into it. Roaming fleets in bigger ships won't have a problem and undefended systems will still be rather easy to conquer. On the other hand defender will have an easier time to deflect any not so serious attempts on their sov. "It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." --áAbrazzar
afkalt Republic Military School Minmatar Republic 913	Posted - 2015.03.10 08:44:02 - [1217] - Quote Aiyshimin wrote: SilentAsTheGrave wrote: I guess I will post it again and maybe it won't be drowned out in tears and rage: In regards to the Entosis Link using fuel: I think this is a good idea. Using one Strontium every time you turn the module on would do a few good things. As Mike pointed out earlier along with the original people I'm sure; it would mean there is some form of logistics taking place to contest these systems. Especially when it comes to the outer lying systems. Smaller ships, such as interceptors hint hint, will have to be somewhat selective on what systems to contest and how many times they are willing to try to contest it. If they find themselves dealing with actual defenders active in the system and negating their Entosis Link with their own, they will have wasted time and will need to move on. Even if super zippy, untouchable (allegedly... ) ships do their thing, they can only do it so long before they run out of fuel. The defenders have the luxary of nearby stations and POS's that are common for alliances that own sov to resupply their Entosis Links. Overdrive Injectors, which is used to gain fast speed, have a penalty to cargo space. Food for thought. If players do not like the idea of having to resupply so often with small fast ships, they can use larger ships with bigger cargo bays. These larger ships tend to be much, much slower than tiny fast frigates. Getting the picture now? What the over all effect is it still means abandoned systems can still be captured just as easy as this new sov system wants, without having to subject itself to the mythical Trollceptors that terrorize the dreams of certain groups. What are your thoughts? Entosis fuel is a good idea. +1 No, but that is because of the 4 hour stalemate which can occur. Nothing will have fuel for that, thus making it an n+1 proposition again. UNLESS it is fuel to activate ONLY and it doesnt burn for the duration of the laser.
SilentAsTheGrave Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective 96	Posted - 2015.03.10 08:50:28 - [1218] - Quote afkalt wrote: Aiyshimin wrote: Entosis fuel is a good idea. +1 No, but that is because of the 4 hour stalemate which can occur. Nothing will have fuel for that, thus making it an n+1 proposition again. UNLESS it is fuel to activate ONLY and it doesnt burn for the duration of the laser. It could be just one unit to activate it and then it lasts until you no longer are on grid/dead/win/lose lock. Then it would last the whole four hours. Then again, maybe it shouldn't last the whole four hours and clearing the grid of hostiles before you go activating the Entosis Link is the way to go. Which I think is the better solution.
Sigras Conglomo 1014	Posted - 2015.03.10 08:50:32 - [1219] - Quote Dave Stark wrote: ok. just ******* scrap the entowhatsit link entirely. if you are on grid, within x distance of the capture node and uncloaked - the node behaves like you have a link active on it under the proposed system. last man standing on the grid gets to start capturing the node. this reflects the "who has control of the grid" malarky. not actually having to fit anything extra to ships means there's literally 0 affect on what ships to pick or how to fit them other than whatever the fotm is. it's easy to understand - if you (or your alliance) are the last and only men standing on the grid you start capturing the node. simplicity in itself. essentially, it's just king of the hill but i don't really see a problem with that. yeah because THAT will fix the troll interceptor problem... I like the idea because it also provides so many more ways that CCP can balance and control the situation as well... /sarcasm
SilentAsTheGrave Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective 96	Posted - 2015.03.10 08:55:08 - [1220] - Quote Jori McKie wrote: SilentAsTheGrave wrote: I guess I will post it again and maybe it won't be drowned out in tears and rage: In regards to the Entosis Link using fuel: I think this is a good idea. Using one Strontium every time you turn the module on would do a few good things. As Mike pointed out earlier along with the original people I'm sure; it would mean there is some form of logistics taking place to contest these systems. Especially when it comes to the outer lying systems. Smaller ships, such as interceptors hint hint, will have to be somewhat selective on what systems to contest and how many times they are willing to try to contest it. If they find themselves dealing with actual defenders active in the system and negating their Entosis Link with their own, they will have wasted time and will need to move on. Even if super zippy, untouchable (allegedly... ) ships do their thing, they can only do it so long before they run out of fuel. The defenders have the luxary of nearby stations and POS's that are common for alliances that own sov to resupply their Entosis Links. Overdrive Injectors, which is used to gain fast speed, have a penalty to cargo space. Food for thought. If players do not like the idea of having to resupply so often with small fast ships, they can use larger ships with bigger cargo bays. These larger ships tend to be much, much slower than tiny fast frigates. Getting the picture now? What the over all effect is it still means abandoned systems can still be captured just as easy as this new sov system wants, without having to subject itself to the mythical Trollceptors that terrorize the dreams of certain groups. What are your thoughts? Damn had the same idea just with cap booster. In the end it doesn't matter what kind of fuel is used as the mechanics behind it are important. And it makes it easy to balance without artificial restrictions to ships or speed. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5568781#post5568781 I saw that and smiled. I hate to sound bias, but I think I like strontium better. Less likely to get mixed up with cap boosters needed for PvP related modules like injectors and ASB. And with boosters we would have to decide what size booster and consider navy versions... Either way, a fuel source feels like it is the right way to go and addresses some of the issues people are having. I do need to bail out of this thread for the night, but feel free to carry the 'it needs a fuel source to work' torch while I am gone.

afkalt Republic Military School Minmatar Republic 914	Posted - 2015.03.10 08:59:24 - [1221] - Quote Sigras wrote: IMHO skirmish ships do not constitute "effective military control" of a grid if they constantly have to run away... For that reason I feel that the entosis link should disable propulsion mods the same way the HIC bubble does. People keep saying this....but if the ship flies off, it loses control of the grid and the structure is not RF'd. If they are allowed to remain uncontested, then yes....even a noob ship is controlling the grid by virtue of nothing else being there. Intys are countered and sov defended by a single ship on grid. Apparently though, this is :effort: that is somehow unfair and everyone should neatly line up to die in camp duck shoots instead. Other common facets are "we'll send 500 people in!!!" well....those 500 would rip stuff up today, too. Those 500 would rip stuff up tomorrow even if inties COULDN'T fit the link. The whole thing is hyperbolic melodrama that will settle down within a few weeks of the changes going live.
afkalt Republic Military School Minmatar Republic 914	Posted - 2015.03.10 09:01:14 - [1222] - Quote SilentAsTheGrave wrote: afkalt wrote: Aiyshimin wrote: Entosis fuel is a good idea. +1 No, but that is because of the 4 hour stalemate which can occur. Nothing will have fuel for that, thus making it an n+1 proposition again. UNLESS it is fuel to activate ONLY and it doesnt burn for the duration of the laser. It could be just one unit to activate it and then it lasts until you no longer are on grid/dead/win/lose lock. Then it would last the whole four hours. Then again, maybe it shouldn't last the whole four hours and clearing the grid of hostiles before you go activating the Entosis Link is the way to go. Which I think is the better solution. It kinda has to, otherwise the defenders can keep rolling the timer back if the attackers are under fuel pressure. Fuel badger DoctrineGäó shouldn't be a thing (for this).
SilentAsTheGrave Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective 97	Posted - 2015.03.10 09:03:36 - [1223] - Quote afkalt wrote: SilentAsTheGrave wrote: afkalt wrote: Aiyshimin wrote: Entosis fuel is a good idea. +1 No, but that is because of the 4 hour stalemate which can occur. Nothing will have fuel for that, thus making it an n+1 proposition again. UNLESS it is fuel to activate ONLY and it doesnt burn for the duration of the laser. It could be just one unit to activate it and then it lasts until you no longer are on grid/dead/win/lose lock. Then it would last the whole four hours. Then again, maybe it shouldn't last the whole four hours and clearing the grid of hostiles before you go activating the Entosis Link is the way to go. Which I think is the better solution. It kinda has to, otherwise the defenders can keep rolling the timer back if the attackers are under fuel pressure. Fuel badger DoctrineGäó shouldn't be a thing (for this). Battle Entosis Fuel Bader is a GO!
Jori McKie TURN LEFT The Camel Empire 218	Posted - 2015.03.10 09:05:52 - [1224] - Quote afkalt wrote: SilentAsTheGrave wrote: afkalt wrote: Aiyshimin wrote: Entosis fuel is a good idea. +1 No, but that is because of the 4 hour stalemate which can occur. Nothing will have fuel for that, thus making it an n+1 proposition again. UNLESS it is fuel to activate ONLY and it doesnt burn for the duration of the laser. It could be just one unit to activate it and then it lasts until you no longer are on grid/dead/win/lose lock. Then it would last the whole four hours. Then again, maybe it shouldn't last the whole four hours and clearing the grid of hostiles before you go activating the Entosis Link is the way to go. Which I think is the better solution. It kinda has to, otherwise the defenders can keep rolling the timer back if the attackers are under fuel pressure. Fuel badger DoctrineGäó shouldn't be a thing (for this). That is the idea, fuel pressure. You can still troll a little in a Ceptor as long as no one shows up. Roaming fleets and serious attempts on sov won't have a problem with fuel. "It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." --áAbrazzar
Dave Stark 7429	Posted - 2015.03.10 09:06:00 - [1225] - Quote Sigras wrote: Dave Stark wrote: ok. just ***** scrap the entowhatsit link entirely. if you are on grid, within x distance of the capture node and uncloaked - the node behaves like you have a link active on it under the proposed system. last man standing on the grid gets to start capturing the node. this reflects the "who has control of the grid" malarky. not actually having to fit anything extra to ships means there's literally 0 affect on what ships to pick or how to fit them other than whatever the fotm is. it's easy to understand - if you (or your alliance) are the last and only men standing on the grid you start capturing the node. simplicity in itself. essentially, it's just king of the hill but i don't really see a problem with that. yeah because THAT will fix the troll interceptor problem... I like the idea because it also provides so many more ways that CCP can balance and control the situation as well... /sarcasm the problem with trollceptors is that it's just going to be ***** broing - pretending it's a game balance issue is laughable at best.
Kaarous Aldurald Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE. 12101	Posted - 2015.03.10 09:10:00 - [1226] - Quote afkalt wrote: Intys are countered and sov defended by a single ship on grid. Apparently though, this is :effort: that is somehow unfair and everyone should neatly line up to die in camp duck shoots instead. Your dogged insistence on misconstruing other people's arguments aside, you're still totally wrong. People feel like it's unacceptable that a single "can't touch me!" interceptor ship can force them to have to remain on grid with every structure in their alliance four hours per day. That's not a fun mechanic, it's not using the sov you live in, and it's not promoting conflict. It's just babysitting. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs.
Aiyshimin Fistful of Finns Triumvirate. 450	Posted - 2015.03.10 09:15:33 - [1227] - Quote afkalt wrote: Aiyshimin wrote: SilentAsTheGrave wrote: I guess I will post it again and maybe it won't be drowned out in tears and rage: In regards to the Entosis Link using fuel: I think this is a good idea. Using one Strontium every time you turn the module on would do a few good things. As Mike pointed out earlier along with the original people I'm sure; it would mean there is some form of logistics taking place to contest these systems. Especially when it comes to the outer lying systems. Smaller ships, such as interceptors hint hint, will have to be somewhat selective on what systems to contest and how many times they are willing to try to contest it. If they find themselves dealing with actual defenders active in the system and negating their Entosis Link with their own, they will have wasted time and will need to move on. Even if super zippy, untouchable (allegedly... ) ships do their thing, they can only do it so long before they run out of fuel. The defenders have the luxary of nearby stations and POS's that are common for alliances that own sov to resupply their Entosis Links. Overdrive Injectors, which is used to gain fast speed, have a penalty to cargo space. Food for thought. If players do not like the idea of having to resupply so often with small fast ships, they can use larger ships with bigger cargo bays. These larger ships tend to be much, much slower than tiny fast frigates. Getting the picture now? What the over all effect is it still means abandoned systems can still be captured just as easy as this new sov system wants, without having to subject itself to the mythical Trollceptors that terrorize the dreams of certain groups. What are your thoughts? Entosis fuel is a good idea. +1 No, but that is because of the 4 hour stalemate which can occur. Nothing will have fuel for that, thus making it an n+1 proposition again. UNLESS it is fuel to activate ONLY and it doesnt burn for the duration of the laser. Wait what, a solo ship will keep the sov beam running for 4 hours in what scenario? I don't see fleetmates bringing you fuel as any kind of n+1 issue, as much as I love solo PVP, sov warfare is not the arena for that.
Chanina ASGARD HEAVY INDUSTRIES Kadeshians 52	Posted - 2015.03.10 09:22:01 - [1228] - Quote Adding some fuel requirement like strontium sounds like a good plan. You have to decide where to use it on and you need a place to replenish. Why not putting the entosi link into the gang link category? It would boost the hulls of BC and there is a good variation of them to fit in almost any doctrine. For ishtars, take some myrmidons or prophecies. It would also counter a fast moving frigate gang that's just generating as much timers as possible due to high mobility. I think to limit entosi links to bigger hulls wouldn't hurt the meta game, as claiming a system should need some decent commitment. And the frigate gang of the attacker would still be viable of driving of the lonely defender. And if your doctrine needs to be faster than battle cruiser there is still the option of gang link T3 cruisers. It even would be a first incentive to place boosting ships on grid. An alternative would be throwing a simple speed restriction on it, you can't light a cyno if moving too fast, so applying this to the link might help too, but how often would it check that speed? every cycle might be too slow. Artificially slowing the ship down could help. Easy way: bigger ship restriction lead to higher commitment.
afkalt Republic Military School Minmatar Republic 914	Posted - 2015.03.10 09:22:44 - [1229] - Quote Aiyshimin wrote: afkalt wrote: Aiyshimin wrote: SilentAsTheGrave wrote: I guess I will post it again and maybe it won't be drowned out in tears and rage: In regards to the Entosis Link using fuel: I think this is a good idea. Using one Strontium every time you turn the module on would do a few good things. As Mike pointed out earlier along with the original people I'm sure; it would mean there is some form of logistics taking place to contest these systems. Especially when it comes to the outer lying systems. Smaller ships, such as interceptors hint hint, will have to be somewhat selective on what systems to contest and how many times they are willing to try to contest it. If they find themselves dealing with actual defenders active in the system and negating their Entosis Link with their own, they will have wasted time and will need to move on. Even if super zippy, untouchable (allegedly... ) ships do their thing, they can only do it so long before they run out of fuel. The defenders have the luxary of nearby stations and POS's that are common for alliances that own sov to resupply their Entosis Links. Overdrive Injectors, which is used to gain fast speed, have a penalty to cargo space. Food for thought. If players do not like the idea of having to resupply so often with small fast ships, they can use larger ships with bigger cargo bays. These larger ships tend to be much, much slower than tiny fast frigates. Getting the picture now? What the over all effect is it still means abandoned systems can still be captured just as easy as this new sov system wants, without having to subject itself to the mythical Trollceptors that terrorize the dreams of certain groups. What are your thoughts? Entosis fuel is a good idea. +1 No, but that is because of the 4 hour stalemate which can occur. Nothing will have fuel for that, thus making it an n+1 proposition again. UNLESS it is fuel to activate ONLY and it doesnt burn for the duration of the laser. Wait what, a solo ship will keep the sov beam running for 4 hours in what scenario? I don't see fleetmates bringing you fuel as any kind of n+1 issue, as much as I love solo PVP, sov warfare is not the arena for that. In an actual contested scenario - links from each side force a tie - then it comes down to who brought most fuel. I don't think that is the way to go. So you have two fleets duking it out with links rolling - this can go on some hours at times. It could easily come down to who has more fuel, which will probably be the defenders. An ACTIVATION only cost would mitigate this, just don't think it should burn fuel from initiation UNTIL module deactiviation given the indeterminate time it might be active for.
Inquisitor Kitchner The Executives Executive Outcomes 1111	Posted - 2015.03.10 09:24:57 - [1230] - 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 Please don't sign your posts Fozzie. Your post isn't so long that half way through I will forget who wrote what I was reading, and even if I did I could just look up and to the left. How can I trust Sov decisions to a man who needlessly signs his posts? "If an injury has to be done to a man it should be so severe that his vengeance need not be feared." - Niccolo Machiavelli

afkalt Republic Military School Minmatar Republic 914	Posted - 2015.03.10 09:27:46 - [1231] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: afkalt wrote: Intys are countered and sov defended by a single ship on grid. Apparently though, this is :effort: that is somehow unfair and everyone should neatly line up to die in camp duck shoots instead. Your dogged insistence on misconstruing other people's arguments aside, you're still totally wrong. People feel like it's unacceptable that a single "can't touch me!" interceptor ship can force them to have to remain on grid with every structure in their alliance four hours per day. That's not a fun mechanic, it's not using the sov you live in, and it's not promoting conflict. It's just babysitting. And the effort bar to stop them is lower than safely transporting a hauler though high sec (you know, that low effort thing people keep talking about) so make the effort to defend the space. You're also willfully misconstruing the mechanics. I don't need to stay on grid, I can relax until such time as the timer is nearly done. I can then undock a cyno alt and contest it, thus driving you off having wasted all your time. What do I lose.....? Nothing. You **** time up the wall in a futile action we can counter with a mere inactive ALT. Or are you going to try and tell me cyno alts are otherwise engaged all the time? Waffle.
Tycho VI Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective 9	Posted - 2015.03.10 09:29:57 - [1232] - Quote But I mean....You start using the link from a position, you can not deviate more then 90 degrees or a certain verible from the start position or the link breaks....would this alleviate any of the trolling concerns at all? Considering people are worried about users trolling by orbiting at with a small sig moving at 7km a sec... Not just one guy, but like a fleet of 40+ FAST and SMALL ships in orbit doing a troll circle around the structure....If they had to stay within 90 degrees of the start position relative to the structure(you may be able to track them at some point if they make a mistake in their spiral with a couple long range defenders/trolling requires piloting skill etc). Some quickly made images to illustrate this concept: The actual angles could be different, this one assumes you pass 90 degrees from the start point in relation to the structure which would deactivate the link. 2 IMAGES: http://i.imgur.com/2A90q5S.jpg http://i.imgur.com/Ndgfimz.jpg There would be a plane you can not pass or the link will be broken. With this, a couple inties harassing a small group would eventually become vulnerable through transversal/angular velocity when they have to stay within the limits of their starting plane to keep the link from breaking. However, you can still bring enough pilots to actually surround the structure with multiple links activated at once to keep the contest going. But at some point each ship would become vulnerable through transversal/angular velocity to be tracked by a small number of long range defenders. Or they could break their link through piloting error.
PotatoOverdose Royal Black Watch Highlanders DARKNESS. 2651	Posted - 2015.03.10 09:31:59 - [1233] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: People feel like it's unacceptable that a single "can't touch me!" interceptor ship can force them to have to remain on grid with every structure in their alliance four hours per day. This has been debunked time and time again in this thread. Here are some facts: -The default targeting range on all interceptors falls between ~20km and ~30km -Yes, an absolutely stupid fit that gives up all of its rigs, all but one of its mids can maybe lock to 120km. Maybe. -Said stupid gimmick fit will die to any ship that can apply dps at those ranges, or to anything that falls in the anti-frigate role. Because it's a stupid gimmick fit. -Anyone that thinks a stupid gimmick fit is going to be viable in sov warfare is a god damn moron, and there are 40 pages of posts highlighting that fact.
Alexander McKeon Blackwater USA Inc. Pandemic Legion 94	Posted - 2015.03.10 09:39:04 - [1234] - Quote Glitched post; ignore.
Dave Stark 7430	Posted - 2015.03.10 09:40:22 - [1235] - Quote PotatoOverdose wrote: -Anyone that thinks a stupid gimmick fit is going to be viable in sov warfare is a god damn moron, and there are 40 pages of posts highlighting that fact. you seem to forget - they aren't intended for sov warfare. they're intended to make the game as unfun and boring as possible so you don't even want to log in to participate in "sov warfare". you know, the whole thing fozzie wants to get away from, as per the dev blog. having to spend 4hrs a day fruitlessly chasing interceptors is going to be boring as ****, especially when that 4hr window is probably the majority of people's active play time. honestly, if i were looking to go from any other area of space to sov null under this new system i'd look for a corp who's prime time wasn't the same as mine. i have better things to do with my game time than pointlessly chase interceptors who have no real intention of fighting and just want to be as irritating as possible.
Alexander McKeon Blackwater USA Inc. Pandemic Legion 94	Posted - 2015.03.10 09:42:18 - [1236] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Those are good points. But this is the Entosis Link and ship balancing thread. I was perhaps relying upon the implications of my post rather than making explicit statements since I was somewhat rushed; if the entosis link can be fit upon skirmish platforms (battlecruisers and below) then the opportunity cost of attacking sov becomes so low as to result in the type of scenario which I described and many see as problematic, with mass reinforcement sapping the defenders' will to fight after being blue balled for weeks.
Carniflex StarHunt Mordus Angels 324	Posted - 2015.03.10 09:52:24 - [1237] - Quote Dave Stark wrote: PotatoOverdose wrote: -Anyone that thinks a stupid gimmick fit is going to be viable in sov warfare is a god damn moron, and there are 40 pages of posts highlighting that fact. you seem to forget - they aren't intended for sov warfare. they're intended to make the game as unfun and boring as possible so you don't even want to log in to participate in "sov warfare". you know, the whole thing fozzie wants to get away from, as per the dev blog. having to spend 4hrs a day fruitlessly chasing interceptors is going to be boring as ***, especially when that 4hr window is probably the majority of people's active play time. honestly, if i were looking to go from any other area of space to sov null under this new system i'd look for a corp who's prime time wasn't the same as mine. i have better things to do with my game time than pointlessly chase interceptors who have no real intention of fighting and just want to be as irritating as possible. In post 1039 in this thread I have provided a scenarios for both static sov structures and freshly spawned command nodes for countering a trollceptor. On average, if both pilots know what they are doing the loss rate of trollceptor would be about 25% against a defender using sniping cormorant on static structure. That did not assume "babysitting" a sov structure. Just being present in local, switching to a pvp ship when noticing troll poking at your sov and going to chase it away. Cormorant is not the only option ofc there is probably other platfroms with higher success rate at killing these. But even at 25% sucess rate at killing the thing it would die in about 10..15 minutes of poking at your structures. On command bunkers the defender would cap the bunker 100% of time against trollceptor using a blackbird cruiser. Here, sanity... niiiice sanity, come to daddy... okay, that's a good sanity... THWONK!* GOT the bastard.
PotatoOverdose Royal Black Watch Highlanders DARKNESS. 2652	Posted - 2015.03.10 09:52:38 - [1238] - Quote Dave Stark wrote: PotatoOverdose wrote: -Anyone that thinks a stupid gimmick fit is going to be viable in sov warfare is a god damn moron, and there are 40 pages of posts highlighting that fact. you seem to forget - they aren't intended for sov warfare. they're intended to make the game as unfun and boring as possible so you don't even want to log in to participate in "sov warfare". you know, the whole thing fozzie wants to get away from, as per the dev blog. having to spend 4hrs a day fruitlessly chasing interceptors is going to be boring as ****, especially when that 4hr window is probably the majority of people's active play time. honestly, if i were looking to go from any other area of space to sov null under this new system i'd look for a corp who's prime time wasn't the same as mine. i have better things to do with my game time than pointlessly chase interceptors who have no real intention of fighting and just want to be as irritating as possible. The four hour window is dumb for many reasons. Reasons that myself and others have posted on in this thread and others. But in general, your misconstruing the situation. Let's say I'm a nullbear running havens in an ishtar. An inty pops into local and goes to the ihub/tcu/station. I warp to pos/station and switch to an anti frig platform, even something as cheap as a maulus will do, an in one or three cycles of my guns/damps/whatever I kill him and/or make him gtfo. God forbid the ratters have to take a 2 minute break from ratting to swat a gimmick fit ceptor. But here's the thing - the status quo doesn't change. If a neutral enters local in sov, the nullbears dock up anyway. The overall amount of time spent ratting stays the same - neutrals disrupt the local nullbears one way or the other in the current system and the new system.
PotatoOverdose Royal Black Watch Highlanders DARKNESS. 2652	Posted - 2015.03.10 09:55:12 - [1239] - Quote If the gimmick ceptor goes into an unoccupied system - he'll be swatted by the locals because gimmick fit. If he goes into an unoccupied system - why does your alliance hold systems that are unoccupied in your prime time?
Zappity Stay Frosty. A Band Apart. 1835	Posted - 2015.03.10 10:00:03 - [1240] - Quote Maybe the entosis link should remove interdiction nullification from hulls. But honestly I can't get too excited about this. Just sounds like a lot of easy interceptor kills to me. Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec.

Sarel Hendar Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic 10	Posted - 2015.03.10 10:01:31 - [1241] - Quote This (and previous) threads have been fascinating. Underlying motives of many posters have started opaque and slowly clarified into better understanding of metagame. Concerns about trollceptors are appearing more and more unfounded. Still, I hope Fozzie keeps his promises in original post about nerfing the trollceptors if they become a problem. We'll see whether they do become a problem and whether they'll be nerfed if they become a problem. Big coalitions want to make it possible to bubble down entire constellations from strategic chokepoints while renting the "safe" interior. This should not be allowed. I'm personally somewhat suspicious about the constellation-level of some of these mechanisms. If some small alliance wants to lay claim on one or two systems, should't the "sov buttons" spawn only in constellation systems that alliance in question controls? (ie. "why should we have to fight on someone else's turf to keep our own sov?") Benefits of owning sov need rebalancing. Preferably along same time as moongoo gets a new mechanism.
Alexander McKeon Blackwater USA Inc. Pandemic Legion 94	Posted - 2015.03.10 10:04:38 - [1242] - Quote PotatoOverdose wrote: If the gimmick ceptor goes into an unoccupied system - he'll be swatted by the locals because gimmick fit. If he goes into an unoccupied system - why does your alliance hold systems that are unoccupied in your prime time? Perhaps because the maximum sustainable population density in most of nullsec is quite low? Stop ignoring complex context in favor of witty one-liners please.
Kazulty Intent Unspecified Fatal Ascension 1	Posted - 2015.03.10 10:07:39 - [1243] - Quote "The Entosis Link itself should have the minimum possible effect on what ships and tactics players can choose." right now the system as described heavily favors smaller hulls since they are more mobile. Hull size should have an effect to actually level the playing field and make all hull types balanced: Frigate hulls +15% time to reinforce (takes longer) Destroyers +10% time Cruisers +5% time Battlecruisers 0% Battleships -10% Capital -20% (reinforces stuff faster) how does this balance anything? well the frigate is going to get to the objective faster and can move from objective to objective faster, thus having a penalty slows frigates down a bit and gives the defender more options to counter the attack. The Battleship will take a relatively long time to get to target, but would be faster at doing what it needed to do when it arrived. The capital will get to the first target quickly but will be very slow/costly to move to another timer due to jump fatigue. This change also gives a small advantage to the defenders because it will be faster for them to put larger ships on field. in other words, defenders could reverse any damage faster by committing larger ships. Note: Any suggestions about making it so the new mod can't be fit with cloaks are really invalid because all the person needs to do is bring a mobile depot ... then they can change mods on the fly at a safe (assuming they have the cargo space to carry it all).
Dave Stark 7430	Posted - 2015.03.10 10:10:08 - [1244] - Quote PotatoOverdose wrote: Dave Stark wrote: PotatoOverdose wrote: -Anyone that thinks a stupid gimmick fit is going to be viable in sov warfare is a god damn moron, and there are 40 pages of posts highlighting that fact. you seem to forget - they aren't intended for sov warfare. they're intended to make the game as unfun and boring as possible so you don't even want to log in to participate in "sov warfare". you know, the whole thing fozzie wants to get away from, as per the dev blog. having to spend 4hrs a day fruitlessly chasing interceptors is going to be boring as **, especially when that 4hr window is probably the majority of people's active play time. honestly, if i were looking to go from any other area of space to sov null under this new system i'd look for a corp who's prime time wasn't the same as mine. i have better things to do with my game time than pointlessly chase interceptors who have no real intention of fighting and just want to be as irritating as possible. The four hour window is dumb for many reasons. Reasons that myself and others have posted on in this thread and others. But in general, your misconstruing the situation. Let's say I'm a nullbear running havens in an ishtar. An inty pops into local and goes to the ihub/tcu/station. I warp to pos/station and switch to an anti frig platform, even something as cheap as a maulus will do, an in one or three cycles of my guns/damps/whatever I kill him and/or make him gtfo. God forbid the ratters have to take a 2 minute break from ratting to swat a gimmick fit ceptor. But here's the thing - the status quo doesn't change. If a neutral enters local in sov, the nullbears dock up anyway. The overall amount of time spent ratting stays the same - neutrals disrupt the local nullbears one way or the other in the current system and the new system. here's the thing - it's still boring and uninteresting. literally nobody has offered a counter to the "weaponised boredom" problem. saying "just shoot them" doesn't stop it being boring, uninteresting, unengaging, and just pure crap. anyone with half a brain knows fleets of intys are never going to carve out a sov empire, but everyone with at least 2 brain cells knows it's going to be dull, and uninteresting having to deal with 'trollceptors'. we know from basically every recent sov war, making your opponents so bored they'd rather not log in and go and play battlefield, or gta, or any other game that isn't eve is the easiest way to win. i'm not going to pretend i'm some kind of sov warfare expert - in fact i'll openly admit to the very opposite. however i look at these changes and ask one question "does this seem like something fun i want to do?" and the answer is; "is it **".
Tycho VI Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective 9	Posted - 2015.03.10 10:10:48 - [1245] - Quote Zappity wrote: Maybe the entosis link should remove interdiction nullification from hulls. But honestly I can't get too excited about this. Just sounds like a lot of easy interceptor kills to me. One of the other main issues with troll ceptors is something that most people aren't touching here. These ships can get grouped up and go anywhere in new eden pretty damn fast, and they can get to any specific system they want to unimpeded by anything in the game except for a bad server tick. If a group wants to set up their empire at the end of a pocket, they should also be able to somewhat reasonably defend their home system using the chokepoint systems, I think that would be healthy and produce a more linear way of conquering entities, having to work your way in over a CONQUEST. I feel it should be this way. Some don't. Sending 40 man ceptor fleet is a great way to bypass any kind of outside system defense and negate any chokepoint. I think this is a bad thing. Some people don't. It will be what it is going to be.
Shalmon Aliatus Bluestar Enterprises The Craftsmen 0	Posted - 2015.03.10 10:15:57 - [1246] - Quote Just a random idea for the enthosis module: Attach you hacking mini-game to it, since it's a hacking process. Increase the time before you start to have an inpact on the sov module. And from there on it is just a hacking process. Let's say the TCU has 50 "points" You claim 1 point per finished hacking level. -The first 10 points will have the difficulty of your average highsec/lowsec-data site. Not that difficult, but done quick to stop the TCU from getting back into reinforced. -The next 30 points will have the difficulty of a null/wh-data site. If you got hacking skills and maybe an imp, they take some time, but they are still doable. - The last 10 points will have the difficulty of a superior sleeper cache. -If you fail the hacking, the opposing side gets a point. -If both sides have a link, you can't score points. This has a lot of advantages: 1. Solo-capping can only be done in highly specialised gimp-fits. If you want to use an interceptor you need max skills for hacking, imps and rigs. 2. Hacking takes time. If capping takes too long or is too easy, just change the difficulty of the hack or the amount of points. 3. It requires someone to be active. No getting the link on the structure and playing something else. 4. If you are focused on hacking, you can't defend yourself easy. So maybe you want to bring some friends.
Dave Stark 7430	Posted - 2015.03.10 10:17:17 - [1247] - Quote Shalmon Aliatus wrote: Just a random idea for the enthosis module: Attach you hacking mini-game to it, since it's a hacking process. Increase the time before you start to have an inpact on the sov module. And from there on it is just a hacking process. Let's say the TCU has 50 "points" You claim 1 point per finished hacking level. -The first 10 points will have the difficulty of your average highsec/lowsec-data site. Not that difficult, but done quick to stop the TCU from getting back into reinforced. -The next 30 points will have the difficulty of a null/wh-data site. If you got hacking skills and maybe an imp, they take some time, but they are still doable. - The last 10 points will have the difficulty of a superior sleeper cache. -If you fail the hacking, the opposing side gets a point. This has a lot of advantages: 1. Solo-capping can only be done in highly specialised gimp-fits. If you want to use an interceptor you need max skills for hacking, imps and rigs. 2. Hacking takes time. If capping takes too long or is too easy, just change the difficulty of the hack or the amount of points. 3. It requires someone to be active. No getting the link on the structure and playing something else. 4. If you are focused on hacking, you can't defend yourself easy. So maybe you wan't to bring some friends. considering the hacking minigame is essentially just an RNG fest - i'm going to instantly say no since RNG is quite literally bullshit. there's no mechanic in any game where RNG is interesting or good.
Ncc 1709 Fusion Enterprises Ltd Shadow of xXDEATHXx 151	Posted - 2015.03.10 10:18:35 - [1248] - Quote Another 65 page thread without a reply? you running short on staff CCP? The simplest counter to troll ceptor is a goon favorate. the sensor damp. just one damp will reduce there 180km locking range down to 117km. 2 damps down to 78km damps from a celestis, 1 damp drops it to 68km, 2 damps down to 30km. now he either commits or leaves. Theres one thing that hasn't been explained. presently I-hub upgrades require sov to be installed, and for the system to be owned by the person trying to deploy things like, jammers, jump bridges, scsaa's. your saying after the changes the I-hub will control the system index rather than the tcu? so people will be able to use these moduals without a tcu installed?
Zappity Stay Frosty. A Band Apart. 1835	Posted - 2015.03.10 10:31:17 - [1249] - Quote Tycho VI wrote: Zappity wrote: Maybe the entosis link should remove interdiction nullification from hulls. But honestly I can't get too excited about this. Just sounds like a lot of easy interceptor kills to me. One of the other main issues with troll ceptors is something that most people aren't touching here. it is actually the main reason they can be considered trolls in the first place. These ships can get grouped up and go anywhere in new eden pretty damn fast, and they can get to any specific system they want to unimpeded by anything in the game except for a bad server tick. This is actually the entire 100% reason they can be refereed to as 'troll'ceptor If a group wants to set up their empire at the end of a pocket, they should also be able to somewhat reasonably defend their home system using the chokepoint systems and controlled pipes, I think that would be healthy and produce a more linear way of conquering entities, having to work your way in over a CONQUEST. Getting to the head of the snake should mean breaking a few gatecamps and killing a couple bubbles on the way if you want to harass a living entity. I feel it should be this way. Some don't. It will be what it is going to be... Live in your systems. Problem solved. Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec.
Dave Stark 7430	Posted - 2015.03.10 10:35:35 - [1250] - Quote Zappity wrote: Tycho VI wrote: Zappity wrote: Maybe the entosis link should remove interdiction nullification from hulls. But honestly I can't get too excited about this. Just sounds like a lot of easy interceptor kills to me. One of the other main issues with troll ceptors is something that most people aren't touching here. it is actually the main reason they can be considered trolls in the first place. These ships can get grouped up and go anywhere in new eden pretty damn fast, and they can get to any specific system they want to unimpeded by anything in the game except for a bad server tick. This is actually the entire 100% reason they can be refereed to as 'troll'ceptor If a group wants to set up their empire at the end of a pocket, they should also be able to somewhat reasonably defend their home system using the chokepoint systems and controlled pipes, I think that would be healthy and produce a more linear way of conquering entities, having to work your way in over a CONQUEST. Getting to the head of the snake should mean breaking a few gatecamps and killing a couple bubbles on the way if you want to harass a living entity. I feel it should be this way. Some don't. It will be what it is going to be... Live in your systems. Problem solved. not sure how living in systems stops bubble immune ships that align in under 2 seconds makes regional geography relevant again?

ISD Ezwal ISD Community Communications Liaisons 4011	Posted - 2015.03.10 10:45:04 - [1251] - Quote Thread temporarily locked for some cleaning. ISD Ezwal Vice Admiral Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs) Interstellar Services Department
Hoshi Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective 54	Posted - 2015.03.10 11:33:43 - [1252] - Quote Sarel Hendar wrote: Big coalitions want to make it possible to bubble down entire constellations from strategic chokepoints while renting the "safe" interior. This should not be allowed. Why not? Everyone is ranting about how you are supposed to defend your space if you want it but here you are coming and saying that one of the few possible ways you can actually do that is not allowed??? If your intention is to actually capture the space then you should have no problem destroying the bubble camp. If your intention is just to "troll" the sov then that thing that should not be allowed my the game mechanics. "Memories are meant to fade. They're designed that way for a reason."
Erasmus Grant EVE University Ivy League 20	Posted - 2015.03.10 11:41:27 - [1253] - Quote Lets say your alliance controls a region. Each corp has their own system or constellation. Your brother corps system/constellation gets attacked. The enemy brings a large fleet containing a good mix of ships from frigs to supers.You get an alliance CTA to go defend your brother corp's system/constellation. So you come with all you go to fend of this large force. Little did they know that large fleet was just a diversion for a trollceptor fleet to come in and hit some your constellation while your forces are for the most part committed to defending your allies system/constellation. Now you're on your way out of a system. You're stuck between defending your own space or helping an ally who may lose their system if you do not assist. Since Frigates can use E-Links they can get thru most chokepoints without a problem.
GeeShizzle MacCloud 537	Posted - 2015.03.10 11:42:55 - [1254] - Quote DING DIING DING Round 3!
Veskrashen Justified Chaos Spaceship Bebop 772	Posted - 2015.03.10 11:51:36 - [1255] - Quote Alavaria Fera wrote: 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) I get that, I just don't see why it's needed. It does mean that a group of 100 bads can't get countered by one guy anymore, but if 100 bads CAN be countered by one guy that's really their own fault. I see no compelling reason why a mechanic that allows N+1 up to a certain threshold is better than a mechanic that disallows N+1 at all. We Gallente have a saying: "CCP created the Gallente Militia to train the Fighters..."
Veskrashen Justified Chaos Spaceship Bebop 772	Posted - 2015.03.10 11:53:18 - [1256] - Quote Alavaria Fera wrote: Yes, it should be quite like structure shooting, writ small. After all, your drakes must stay on grid until the hp bar gets to where it reinforces, so you should stay on grid until the sov laser gets the sov laser bar thing to the reinforce point. Exactly! Stay on grid until the job is done, or don't make any progress at all. Glad to see you're starting to get it. We Gallente have a saying: "CCP created the Gallente Militia to train the Fighters..."
Wolf Kruol Hikaru's Dozen 73	Posted - 2015.03.10 11:54:26 - [1257] - Quote I think that any ship ceptor or carrier using the entosis link in those nodes should be a sitting duck during the cycle time. Vulnerable and easy to kill. Let there be support fleet to defend the weakened hacker ship. If not troller won't last long if challenged. :) Option of the defend to destroy or just nullify the timer or both is perfect.. Its hard to assume what needs tweaking till something is in practice. Then we have a better idea what needs tweaking. I like these changes give anyone a chance to do something positive and / or negative to claimed space that isn't protected or is. CCP great idea. I hated the bashing structures... GÇ£If you're very very stupid? How can you possibly realize you're very very stupid? You have to be relatively intelligent to realize how stupid you really are!GÇ¥
Veskrashen Justified Chaos Spaceship Bebop 772	Posted - 2015.03.10 11:57:16 - [1258] - Quote Promiscuous Female wrote: while this system shares some blood with faction warfare, it's not faction warfare there are no acceleration gates forcing all contenders into a tiny spit of space where they can be engaged at will you have to try a little harder in 0.0 Yup, you do. If you want to be a Big Bad Sov Holding Coalition with your name on the map, step up and do the work. You've got all the tools you need to counter the mythical invulnerable uncatchable uncounterable Trollceptor, so use them. If you're not good enough to do so, then you don't deserve your space. FW plex mechanics have their own pluses and minuses. Starting every fight at zero is one of them. Which is why fights in Larges are so much different than in Novice, Small and Medium plexes. But hey - we're FW pilots, not self entitled pansy nullbears. We adapt. Do the same, or lose your space, either one is fine by me. We Gallente have a saying: "CCP created the Gallente Militia to train the Fighters..."
Sougiro Seta We are not bad. Just unlucky Goonswarm Federation 23	Posted - 2015.03.10 12:02:45 - [1259] - Quote All the goonhaters are realizing that, what it's probably going to be annoying for the big boys, is gonna ruin the game experience of all those null inhabitants you don't hate?
Veskrashen Justified Chaos Spaceship Bebop 772	Posted - 2015.03.10 12:05:47 - [1260] - Quote Regarding fuel for the Entosis Link: It's not a bad idea, but really really changes the dynamic in that the idea ships then become cloaky boats with large cargo holds - Cloaky Nullified T3s, for example. Plus those groups with good logistics. It just seems like another way to force the module to be used on larger, slower hulls that are easier to catch on grid, interdict with bubbled gate camps, and the like. The better solution, IMO, is to focus on cap use of the module. Interceptors already have pretty fragile capacitors, so giving the Entosis Link a non-trivial cap use would force other compromises. You could use it on an Inty, for example, but you'd need to dedicate fitting slots to cap rechargers and cap batteries and the like to keep both it and an MWD running. It would be a light enough touch - one of CCP's design goals - that would allow a lot of fleet comp variety and not unnecessarily lock it out of use by small, fast, interdiction nullified hulls. We Gallente have a saying: "CCP created the Gallente Militia to train the Fighters..."

Veskrashen Justified Chaos Spaceship Bebop 772	Posted - 2015.03.10 12:07:37 - [1261] - Quote Sougiro Seta wrote: All the goonhaters are realizing that, what it's probably going to be annoying for the big boys, is gonna ruin the game experience of all those null inhabitants you don't hate? Not really. If they can't deal with GewnTrolls then they don't deserve their space either. If GewnTrolls decide to descend upon their space like locusts to Trololololol them for a week, they've got a bazillion tools at their disposal they can use during their prime time to render them absolutely and completely irrelevant. If they're not good enough to do that, then they don't deserve to keep their space. We Gallente have a saying: "CCP created the Gallente Militia to train the Fighters..."
Sougiro Seta We are not bad. Just unlucky Goonswarm Federation 24	Posted - 2015.03.10 12:18:45 - [1262] - Quote Veskrashen wrote: Sougiro Seta wrote: All the goonhaters are realizing that, what it's probably going to be annoying for the big boys, is gonna ruin the game experience of all those null inhabitants you don't hate? Not really. If they can't deal with GewnTrolls then they don't deserve their space either. If GewnTrolls decide to descend upon their space like locusts to Trololololol them for a week, they've got a bazillion tools at their disposal they can use during their prime time to render them absolutely and completely irrelevant. If they're not good enough to do that, then they don't deserve to keep their space. You're clearly overestimating the willingness of most humans to spend 4h a day working on his pixel spacecraft, to get less in return than they'll get in Osmon running lvl4s.
Wolf Kruol Hikaru's Dozen 73	Posted - 2015.03.10 12:20:19 - [1263] - Quote Sougiro Seta wrote: All the goonhaters are realizing that, what it's probably going to be annoying for the big boys, is gonna ruin the game experience of all those null inhabitants you don't hate? This will not ruin anything. If player empires can't defend there own systems you don't deserve it. As much as goons troll through there propaganda machine tactics to scare players.. it works both ways. Anyone will be able to cause destruction and mayhem or.. something new and creative. It all depends on which side your on. Goons is all talk now because they're scared. When these changes happen they're be too busy holding there systems as will other Alliances. When the flames burn out then we will see which uber alliances are secure in there regions.. I'm convinced that many of the large empires will be much smaller in size after the cool down rampage and more smaller new alliances using the other conquered spaces. GÇ£If you're very very stupid? How can you possibly realize you're very very stupid? You have to be relatively intelligent to realize how stupid you really are!GÇ¥
Phoenix Jones Isogen 5 1139	Posted - 2015.03.10 12:21:19 - [1264] - Quote I've been going over this in my mind. Really the only issues with the module and the ships is speed, interceptor (bubble immunity), cloaky ships, and T3's (cloaky bubble immune). You can address two of the issues simply by denying the ability to equip both a cloaking device and this Entosis module. This way you can still use a cloaky ship to do a capture, but they would have to remove their cloaking device, refit the entosis module, then go in. If they get caught and run, they would still have to unequip the entosis module, equip a cloak, and cloak. This gives a benefit to the defender in regards to catching, probing and destroying a cloaky camper. This means that mobile depots become more important. In otherwords, you do not do a ship restriction, you do a module restriction (that being any type of cloaking device). Yaay!!!!
knobber Jobbler Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 526	Posted - 2015.03.10 12:27:15 - [1265] - Quote Alexander McKeon wrote: PotatoOverdose wrote: If the gimmick ceptor goes into an unoccupied system - he'll be swatted by the locals because gimmick fit. If he goes into an unoccupied system - why does your alliance hold systems that are unoccupied in your prime time? Perhaps because the maximum sustainable population density in most of nullsec is quite low? Stop ignoring complex context in favor of witty one-liners please. But what about scoring internet points?!
Basil Pupkin Why So Platypus 132	Posted - 2015.03.10 12:33:59 - [1266] - Quote Fozzie, not like you were not favoring goonies before, but this really goes over favoring straight into overfavoring. This system is keys to eve handed to one coalition. The whole potential of it stops at that point. A crap ton equals 1000 crap loads in metric, and roughly 91 shit loads 12 bull shits and 1 puppy's unforeseen disaster in imperial.
knobber Jobbler Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 526	Posted - 2015.03.10 12:34:33 - [1267] - Quote Veskrashen wrote: Sougiro Seta wrote: All the goonhaters are realizing that, what it's probably going to be annoying for the big boys, is gonna ruin the game experience of all those null inhabitants you don't hate? Not really. If they can't deal with GewnTrolls then they don't deserve their space either. If GewnTrolls decide to descend upon their space like locusts to Trololololol them for a week, they've got a bazillion tools at their disposal they can use during their prime time to render them absolutely and completely irrelevant. If they're not good enough to do that, then they don't deserve to keep their space. Are you going to be on guard 4 hours a day, every day, waiting at your keyboard to get an alliance mail to say your sov structures in system xyz and 10 others are under attack? Sounds like a job, doesn't sound like fun. Doesn't sound like fleet pvp, gang pvp or eve ~elite~ pvp. It will be annoying and you know it, you're just seeing the alliances of the people making sense and like a bunch of others just being obstinate because you can't bring yourself to agree with a grr gon. Half or more of the people commenting in this thread will never hold sov, will never even try to hold sov and don't care about sov. They're the same people who cheered on space aids without actually thinking it through, stating how it would change how the game works, only to be faced several months later that it did almost the complete opposite of the stated changes.
Veskrashen Justified Chaos Spaceship Bebop 774	Posted - 2015.03.10 12:37:49 - [1268] - Quote Sougiro Seta wrote: You're clearly overestimating the willingness of most humans to spend 4h a day working on his pixel spacecraft, to get less in return than they'll get in Osmon running lvl4s. You're clearly underestimating the time and effort folks will put in to keep their "home" safe and have a flag on a map. You're being asked to be available a whopping 4 hours per day to potentially defend against an attack on your sov. We're being assaulted 23/7/365 across a much wider front with no notification system and a far smaller playerbase. And yet, not only do we survive, we thrive on the conflict it brings. Which is why we refer to lazy folks in nullsec who seem to view any requirement that they be active on a regular basis, or that their isk earning would be potentially dangerous, as lazy entitled pansy nullbears. But hey - if having your flag on the map and your own "home" in nullsec isn't worth the effort, that's cool. I hear you can make more isk running L4 missions in Osmon. We Gallente have a saying: "CCP created the Gallente Militia to train the Fighters..."
Yroc Jannseen Enlightened Industries Goonswarm Federation 69	Posted - 2015.03.10 12:41:22 - [1269] - Quote So it's good to see that Fozzie is taking an active part in this conversation.
Zazad Antollare Enlightened Industries Goonswarm Federation 2	Posted - 2015.03.10 12:42:23 - [1270] - Quote [quote=Veskrashen We're being assaulted 23/7/365 across a much wider front with no notification system and a far smaller playerbase. And yet, not only do we survive, we thrive on the conflict it brings. [/quote] Tell me more how you can lose your assets in npc stations, oh wait you cant.

Jori McKie TURN LEFT The Camel Empire 218	Posted - 2015.03.10 12:44:19 - [1271] - Quote Veskrashen wrote: Regarding fuel for the Entosis Link: It's not a bad idea, but really really changes the dynamic in that the idea ships then become cloaky boats with large cargo holds - Cloaky Nullified T3s, for example. Plus those groups with good logistics. It just seems like another way to force the module to be used on larger, slower hulls that are easier to catch on grid, interdict with bubbled gate camps, and the like. The better solution, IMO, is to focus on cap use of the module. Interceptors already have pretty fragile capacitors, so giving the Entosis Link a non-trivial cap use would force other compromises. You could use it on an Inty, for example, but you'd need to dedicate fitting slots to cap rechargers and cap batteries and the like to keep both it and an MWD running. It would be a light enough touch - one of CCP's design goals - that would allow a lot of fleet comp variety and not unnecessarily lock it out of use by small, fast, interdiction nullified hulls. Yes, cap pressure would be an option too. The point is no ship should be able to run around for an unlimited amount of time and be able to challenge sov. So with cap pressure you have to make sure the Ceptor has to fit a cap booster and can't circumvent the cap pressure via rigs or med slots. You have the same mechanic then as SilentAsTheGrave and i suggest. Refueling on a large scale is an effort if you only want to troll but not if you mean it serious. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5568732#post5568732 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5568781#post5568781 "It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." --áAbrazzar
Veskrashen Justified Chaos Spaceship Bebop 774	Posted - 2015.03.10 12:44:55 - [1272] - Quote Phoenix Jones wrote: I've been going over this in my mind. Really the only issues with the module and the ships is speed, interceptor (bubble immunity), cloaky ships, and T3's (cloaky bubble immune). None of those are actually problems. 1. Bubble immunity is an awesome thing - it allows you to get into deep enemy sov space with reasonable effort. You need to have bubble immune ships able to equip and use Entosis Links, because that puts ALL sov space at risk all the same time during your chosen window of vulnerability. There's no ability to secure a "border" and have deep areas of sov null untouchable havens of isk-spewing fountains. 2. Cloaks are also not an issue. If you're cloaked, you have no lock, therefore you can't make any progress. If the defender can undo your work while you're cloaked, you've accomplished nothing. Cloaks don't make you uncatchable or immune to dying - and in fact, since an Entosis Link will keep you from warping off while it's active, you're easier to catch. The only real change that we need to ensure is implemented is that having an Entosis Link active (i.e. still in it's active cycle like Bastion / Triage / Siege) prevents the activation of a cloaking device. If that happens, cloaks will be a viable tool to get yourself into position, but won't help you survive if there's active defenders. 3. Cloaky Nullified T3s have the advantage of being able to penetrate into deep sov space, and have the ability to pick their fights. They are indeed big threats. They are also, however, not invulnerable - you make a lot of tradeoffs to get that cloak and interdiction nullification, in terms of DPS / tank / projection / mobility. If Entosis Links prevent you from re-cloaking while active, Cloaky Nullified T3s will be fairly easy to catch and make for nice tasty shiny killmails when caught. We Gallente have a saying: "CCP created the Gallente Militia to train the Fighters..."
Ukiah Oregan Lithomancers 17	Posted - 2015.03.10 12:45:11 - [1273] - Quote Andrea Keuvo wrote: [quote=Arkon Olacar][quote=Maximus Andendare][quote=Arkon Olacar] An occupancy based sov system where the best systems can support at most a half a dozen occupants and the worst aren't worth occupying at all is doomed to end in failure. Anomaly quality needs to be decoupled from truesec so that over time even the lower quality systems are worth living in. CCP, You really need to set back and look at the basics. I really believe null sec is so broken that you [CCP] can't see the trees for the forest! there are only a few select systems that are truly profitable in each null sec region null sec should be completely lawless and 100% risk stations in null sec provides virtually zero risk to pilots/corps with no stake in the alliance stations going "open port" only decreases the risk to player assets current SOV system and proposed changes sucks - it is still based on politics not warfare outcome why keep making SOV mechanics = why not make this a sandbox experience and let the players create their on warfare ? who cares who owns a null sec system ? it's completely lawless on the other hand: POS = 100% risk - they can be destroyed with all assets lost/salvaged = which means = invested interest in protecting said POS by every player associated to said POS living out of POS is hard compared to station living = and full of risk = should equal high reward = only the most determined will do it make every null sec system worth occupying - until you [CCP] do this nothing else you [CCP] do will fix null sec
Veskrashen Justified Chaos Spaceship Bebop 775	Posted - 2015.03.10 12:52:42 - [1274] - Quote knobber Jobbler wrote: Are you going to be on guard 4 hours a day, every day, waiting at your keyboard to get an alliance mail to say your sov structures in system xyz and 10 others are under attack? Sounds like a job, doesn't sound like fun. Doesn't sound like fleet pvp, gang pvp or eve ~elite~ pvp. It will be annoying and you know it, you're just seeing the alliances of the people making sense and like a bunch of others just being obstinate because you can't bring yourself to agree with a grr gon. Hi. Faction Warfare pilot here. I logged in every day for months and fought constantly because TEST was in CalMil, stationed in Innia, right next to our bastion of Fortress Eha. We killed thousands of ships month in and month out just to hold that one system - and because we undocked, fought, and forced them to bash their heads against the wall... Eha never fell. The fact that you don't have nearly the same level of pride or determination is not my failing, nor that of my alliance. It does, however, speak volumes about you and yours. The fact that you seem to feel that your experience with EHP+timer based Sov objectives somehow invalidates my extensive experience with distributed objective timer based capture mechanics with cumulative impact on system control is... laughable. Fozziesov has FAR more in common with current FW system control mechanics than with anything previously seen in nullsec. Perhaps you all should be paying more attention to the folks who have been living, thriving, and winning under those mechanics for some time now. Or, yanno, fail to adapt and whine on the forums. Up to you I suppose. We Gallente have a saying: "CCP created the Gallente Militia to train the Fighters..."
Veskrashen Justified Chaos Spaceship Bebop 775	Posted - 2015.03.10 12:53:52 - [1275] - Quote Zazad Antollare wrote: Veskrashen wrote: We're being assaulted 23/7/365 across a much wider front with no notification system and a far smaller playerbase. And yet, not only do we survive, we thrive on the conflict it brings. Tell me more how you can lose your assets in npc stations, oh wait you cant. Tell me more about how losing a system in FW allows you to continue to have access to those assets. Oh wait, it doesn't. We don't even get the 48 hour Freeport window that you folks will get under this new system. CCP is being damn generous to you in that regard. We Gallente have a saying: "CCP created the Gallente Militia to train the Fighters..."
Veskrashen Justified Chaos Spaceship Bebop 775	Posted - 2015.03.10 12:55:02 - [1276] - Quote SoulLess Zealot wrote: its kind of amazing seeing people continuously spout reasons why dooms day fits that can just reinforce regions unimpeded. When all it takes is 1person to contest someone elses entosis link.. Why are people still trying to make this argument vailid. Im also hearing talk of how this will turn the game into a stagnent grind and not invite pvp. My question to you is "have you ever lived in low sec...or been a part of faction warfare?" I think if you spend some time in black rise you might change your tune... My esteemed colleague from the Caldari Militia gets it. Cheers to you, madame. We Gallente have a saying: "CCP created the Gallente Militia to train the Fighters..."
Zazad Antollare Enlightened Industries Goonswarm Federation 2	Posted - 2015.03.10 12:55:35 - [1277] - Quote SoulLess Zealot wrote: Im also hearing talk of how this will turn the game into a stagnent grind and not invite pvp. My question to you is "have you ever lived in low sec...or been a part of faction warfare?" I think if you spend some time in black rise you might change your toon.... So you are a low sec pilot talking about sov... The thing you keep forgeting is that we put assets on risk in our stations, in low sec you never have anything at risk expect the ship you are flying.
SoulLess Zealot IceBox Inc. Lasers Are Magic 3	Posted - 2015.03.10 12:56:57 - [1278] - Quote Veskrashen wrote: knobber Jobbler wrote: Are you going to be on guard 4 hours a day, every day, waiting at your keyboard to get an alliance mail to say your sov structures in system xyz and 10 others are under attack? Sounds like a job, doesn't sound like fun. Doesn't sound like fleet pvp, gang pvp or eve ~elite~ pvp. It will be annoying and you know it, you're just seeing the alliances of the people making sense and like a bunch of others just being obstinate because you can't bring yourself to agree with a grr gon. Hi. Faction Warfare pilot here. I logged in every day for months and fought constantly because TEST was in CalMil, stationed in Innia, right next to our bastion of Fortress Eha. We killed thousands of ships month in and month out just to hold that one system - and because we undocked, fought, and forced them to bash their heads against the wall... Eha never fell. The fact that you don't have nearly the same level of pride or determination is not my failing, nor that of my alliance. It does, however, speak volumes about you and yours. The fact that you seem to feel that your experience with EHP+timer based Sov objectives somehow invalidates my extensive experience with distributed objective timer based capture mechanics with cumulative impact on system control is... laughable. Fozziesov has FAR more in common with current FW system control mechanics than with anything previously seen in nullsec. Perhaps you all should be paying more attention to the folks who have been living, thriving, and winning under those mechanics for some time now. Or, yanno, fail to adapt and whine on the forums. Up to you I suppose. Lol so hard .. I agree 100% .. Btw good luck with your siege of rak. ;)
Basil Pupkin Why So Platypus 132	Posted - 2015.03.10 12:57:30 - [1279] - Quote Veskrashen wrote: knobber Jobbler wrote: Are you going to be on guard 4 hours a day, every day, waiting at your keyboard to get an alliance mail to say your sov structures in system xyz and 10 others are under attack? Sounds like a job, doesn't sound like fun. Doesn't sound like fleet pvp, gang pvp or eve ~elite~ pvp. It will be annoying and you know it, you're just seeing the alliances of the people making sense and like a bunch of others just being obstinate because you can't bring yourself to agree with a grr gon. Hi. Faction Warfare pilot here. I logged in every day for months and fought constantly because TEST was in CalMil, stationed in Innia, right next to our bastion of Fortress Eha. We killed thousands of ships month in and month out just to hold that one system - and because we undocked, fought, and forced them to bash their heads against the wall... Eha never fell. The fact that you don't have nearly the same level of pride or determination is not my failing, nor that of my alliance. It does, however, speak volumes about you and yours. The fact that you seem to feel that your experience with EHP+timer based Sov objectives somehow invalidates my extensive experience with distributed objective timer based capture mechanics with cumulative impact on system control is... laughable. Fozziesov has FAR more in common with current FW system control mechanics than with anything previously seen in nullsec. Perhaps you all should be paying more attention to the folks who have been living, thriving, and winning under those mechanics for some time now. Or, yanno, fail to adapt and whine on the forums. Up to you I suppose. Not to bash on your experience, but it's just one (ok, handful) of systems. And the talk here is about hundreds. A crap ton equals 1000 crap loads in metric, and roughly 91 shit loads 12 bull shits and 1 puppy's unforeseen disaster in imperial.
Ncc 1709 Fusion Enterprises Ltd Shadow of xXDEATHXx 151	Posted - 2015.03.10 12:58:02 - [1280] - Quote Without renters, people will have to work for their kills o.0

GeeShizzle MacCloud 537	Posted - 2015.03.10 12:58:05 - [1281] - 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: Use their guns Use ECM 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.
SoulLess Zealot IceBox Inc. Lasers Are Magic 3	Posted - 2015.03.10 12:58:59 - [1282] - Quote Zazad Antollare wrote: SoulLess Zealot wrote: Im also hearing talk of how this will turn the game into a stagnent grind and not invite pvp. My question to you is "have you ever lived in low sec...or been a part of faction warfare?" I think if you spend some time in black rise you might change your toon.... So you are a low sec pilot talking about sov... The thing you keep forgeting is that we put assets on risk in our stations, in low sec you never have anything at risk expect the ship you are flying. Lol this comment proves you have no idea what your talking about
Sarel Hendar Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic 12	Posted - 2015.03.10 13:05:01 - [1283] - Quote Hoshi wrote: Sarel Hendar wrote: Big coalitions want to make it possible to bubble down entire constellations from strategic chokepoints while renting the "safe" interior. This should not be allowed. Why not? Everyone is ranting about how you are supposed to defend your space if you want it but here you are coming and saying that one of the few possible ways you can actually do that is not allowed??? If your intention is to actually capture the space then you should have no problem destroying the bubble camp. If your intention is just to "troll" the sov then that thing that should not be allowed my the game mechanics. You should defend your entire space, not just lock down two or three strategic systems one must pass to go into certain constellations. Also note that it's not only the entosis that bubble-immune ceptors make possible. I have some fond recollections of hunting goon afk-tars in Fade and Deklein, pursuit that was impossible before ceptor buff... "Safe" and "nullsec" should be contradictory terms. Yes, yes, even hisec isn't "perfectly" safe, but currently far too large swathes of nullsec are much safer than hisec if you're blue to the ruling coalition.
Sougiro Seta We are not bad. Just unlucky Goonswarm Federation 25	Posted - 2015.03.10 13:08:14 - [1284] - Quote The amount of John Snows, who don't understand that risk-reward relation is absurd when you risk nothing (aka ceptor) to contest a sov/harass a whole group of people, is astonishing.
SoulLess Zealot IceBox Inc. Lasers Are Magic 3	Posted - 2015.03.10 13:10:44 - [1285] - Quote Sougiro Seta wrote: The amount of John Snows, who don't understand that risk-reward relation is absurd when you risk nothing (aka ceptor) to contest a sov/harass a whole group of people, is astonishing. I think your just scared of fw corps/alliances taking yours and your renters sov from you.. Seems like you dont have faith in your members individual skills
Daimus Daranius 24th Imperial Crusade Amarr Empire 8	Posted - 2015.03.10 13:17:58 - [1286] - Quote The amount of goon tears in this thread is causing a flood of biblical proportions, and their reactions are silly even when people like God's Apples are giving them exact fits that are perfect counter to trollceptors. If cloaking modules didn't exist today and were about to be introduced in the next update then Goons would be now crying about how unkillable and uncounterable afk cloakers will be. Of course, large nullsec blocks will lose some sov under the new system, but that's a step in the right direction, since blue donut is bad for EVE. Amarr Victor!
Daimus Daranius 24th Imperial Crusade Amarr Empire 8	Posted - 2015.03.10 13:19:37 - [1287] - Quote progodlegend wrote: Gorski Car wrote: There are so many things you can do to counter trollceptors I cant help but think that this is a vocal minority overreacting and creating doomsday scenarios. You're considering this from the perspective of an individual grid or even an individual engagement. But from the perspective of someone who most run an alliance, and choose how much daily stress to put their alliance under, it's an entirely different thought process. There are counters to everything. There are counters to Ishtars, there are counters to tengu fleet, there were even counters to carrier assigned fighters which you seemed to hate so much. Just because something has a counter doesn't mean that the risk vs. reward aspect is balanced for both the attacker and the defender. Don't hold more systems than you can defend, problem solved. Amarr Victor!
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 662	Posted - 2015.03.10 13:31:02 - [1288] - Quote SoulLess Zealot wrote: Zazad Antollare wrote: SoulLess Zealot wrote: Im also hearing talk of how this will turn the game into a stagnent grind and not invite pvp. My question to you is "have you ever lived in low sec...or been a part of faction warfare?" I think if you spend some time in black rise you might change your toon.... So you are a low sec pilot talking about sov... The thing you keep forgeting is that we put assets on risk in our stations, in low sec you never have anything at risk expect the ship you are flying. Lol this comment proves you have no idea what your talking about using a non-fw alt to extract your assets sure is tough i tell you whut
knobber Jobbler Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 526	Posted - 2015.03.10 13:33:49 - [1289] - Quote Veskrashen wrote: knobber Jobbler wrote: Are you going to be on guard 4 hours a day, every day, waiting at your keyboard to get an alliance mail to say your sov structures in system xyz and 10 others are under attack? Sounds like a job, doesn't sound like fun. Doesn't sound like fleet pvp, gang pvp or eve ~elite~ pvp. It will be annoying and you know it, you're just seeing the alliances of the people making sense and like a bunch of others just being obstinate because you can't bring yourself to agree with a grr gon. Hi. Faction Warfare pilot here. I logged in every day for months and fought constantly because TEST was in CalMil, stationed in Innia, right next to our bastion of Fortress Eha. We killed thousands of ships month in and month out just to hold that one system - and because we undocked, fought, and forced them to bash their heads against the wall... Eha never fell. The fact that you don't have nearly the same level of pride or determination is not my failing, nor that of my alliance. It does, however, speak volumes about you and yours. The fact that you seem to feel that your experience with EHP+timer based Sov objectives somehow invalidates my extensive experience with distributed objective timer based capture mechanics with cumulative impact on system control is... laughable. Fozziesov has FAR more in common with current FW system control mechanics than with anything previously seen in nullsec. Perhaps you all should be paying more attention to the folks who have been living, thriving, and winning under those mechanics for some time now. Or, yanno, fail to adapt and whine on the forums. Up to you I suppose. But one system, in a system which is basically PVE with a PVP side show, a system universally acknowledged as the place where former sov holders go to die - nullsec with training wheels and arm floats. Try doing this with regions, with tens of thousands of players and dozens of simultaneous timers. Sitting next door to the system you're continually defending is a luxury and fighting, even winning against Test is literally nothing to be proud about. Test couldn't organise a drinking contest in a brewery. This new system will not be fun little fleets vs other fun little fleets, it will be constant fire brigades against swarms of small ships, flying alone but working in concert until they find a system which is unguarded due to a missed alarm clock or someone simply saying "Screw this, I'm not doing my shift this week, I'm off to play some DOTA, someone else can sit and watch for four hours". Then two days later armageddon arrives and your members, burnt out from weeks of timesheeted, alarm clocked guard assignments, chasing multitudes of interceptors using grid-fu, having just removed the catheters as they're finally allowed to leave their posts, are all off playing a fun game. You'll be waving good by to your time in nullsec due to a stupid mechanic and resigning yourself, along with all the other former sov holding alliances who couldn't cut it, back to the graveyard of dreams and grandeur that is Faction Warfare. Don't mistake objective criticism of a proposed system, put forward by a player turned game designer with limited large alliance level experience with whining.
Dave Stark 7431	Posted - 2015.03.10 13:34:04 - [1290] - Quote 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: Use their guns Use ECM 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.

Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 663	Posted - 2015.03.10 13:40:51 - [1291] - Quote SoulLess Zealot wrote: First off not everyone has j/f alts bud .. how personal jf alts are like a basic requirement to actually be a person in this game
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 663	Posted - 2015.03.10 13:42:14 - [1292] - Quote also if you are that destitute after engaging in fw missions, just drop fw and duckwalk out of lowsec with your stuff
Carniflex StarHunt Mordus Angels 325	Posted - 2015.03.10 13:42:19 - [1293] - Quote knobber Jobbler wrote: Veskrashen wrote: Sougiro Seta wrote: All the goonhaters are realizing that, what it's probably going to be annoying for the big boys, is gonna ruin the game experience of all those null inhabitants you don't hate? Not really. If they can't deal with GewnTrolls then they don't deserve their space either. If GewnTrolls decide to descend upon their space like locusts to Trololololol them for a week, they've got a bazillion tools at their disposal they can use during their prime time to render them absolutely and completely irrelevant. If they're not good enough to do that, then they don't deserve to keep their space. Are you going to be on guard 4 hours a day, every day, waiting at your keyboard to get an alliance mail to say your sov structures in system xyz and 10 others are under attack? Sounds like a job, doesn't sound like fun. Doesn't sound like fleet pvp, gang pvp or eve ~elite~ pvp. It will be annoying and you know it, you're just seeing the alliances of the people making sense and like a bunch of others just being obstinate because you can't bring yourself to agree with a grr gon. Half or more of the people commenting in this thread will never hold sov, will never even try to hold sov and don't care about sov. They're the same people who cheered on space aids without actually thinking it through, stating how it would change how the game works, only to be faced several months later that it did almost the complete opposite of the stated changes. Just live in the system. So you dont have to wait for the mail. If the system has no one in it during your prime time then it is obviously vulnerable. The goal as stated was to determine the "military dominance of grid" with this sov laser thingy. No one is present in grid - one side that IS present dominates. Here, sanity... niiiice sanity, come to daddy... okay, that's a good sanity... THWONK! GOT the bastard.
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 663	Posted - 2015.03.10 13:43:01 - [1294] - Quote it is like you are incapable of thought actually considering your opinions on sov i guess this is a non-surprise in retrospect
SoulLess Zealot IceBox Inc. Lasers Are Magic 5	Posted - 2015.03.10 13:43:04 - [1295] - Quote Promiscuous Female wrote: SoulLess Zealot wrote: First off not everyone has j/f alts bud .. how personal jf alts are like a basic requirement to actually be a person in this game Well i guess when you live in null and rat all day you would have the isk to buy one
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 663	Posted - 2015.03.10 13:44:51 - [1296] - Quote SoulLess Zealot wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: SoulLess Zealot wrote: First off not everyone has j/f alts bud .. how personal jf alts are like a basic requirement to actually be a person in this game Well i guess when you live in null and rat all day you would have the isk to buy one lookit this guy with orbit beacons for LP and FW missions trying to claim the carebear angle
Daimus Daranius 24th Imperial Crusade Amarr Empire 10	Posted - 2015.03.10 13:46:11 - [1297] - Quote Dave Stark wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: Daimus Daranius wrote: even when people like God's Apples are giving them exact fits that are perfect counter to trollceptors. his idea was garbage fyi and would not work and still doesn't address that dealing with trollceptors is going to be boring, tedious, uninteresting, and just reinventing the problem of "weaponized boredom" Is it going to be more boring than the current structure grind? And if attackers are willing to devote more time, resources and commitment than defenders then I think they deserve the system. Amarr Victor!
Dras Malar Cloak and Daggers Fidelas Constans 7	Posted - 2015.03.10 13:47:09 - [1298] - Quote Daimus Daranius wrote: Dave Stark wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: Daimus Daranius wrote: even when people like God's Apples are giving them exact fits that are perfect counter to trollceptors. his idea was garbage fyi and would not work and still doesn't address that dealing with trollceptors is going to be boring, tedious, uninteresting, and just reinventing the problem of "weaponized boredom" Is it going to be more boring than the current structure grind? And if attackers are willing to devote more time, resources and commitment than defenders then I think they deserve the system. Great, then everyone will deserve every system everywhere.
SoulLess Zealot IceBox Inc. Lasers Are Magic 5	Posted - 2015.03.10 13:47:59 - [1299] - Quote Promiscuous Female wrote: SoulLess Zealot wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: SoulLess Zealot wrote: First off not everyone has j/f alts bud .. how personal jf alts are like a basic requirement to actually be a person in this game Well i guess when you live in null and rat all day you would have the isk to buy one lookit this guy with orbit beacons for LP and FW missions trying to claim the carebear angle Lol in four posts you havent added anything relevant to the conversation
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 663	Posted - 2015.03.10 13:49:57 - [1300] - Quote SoulLess Zealot wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: lookit this guy with orbit beacons for LP and FW missions trying to claim the carebear angle Lol in four posts you havent added anything relevant to the conversation aaand complaining about posting another poster put in his place

Eli Apol Pro Synergy 352	Posted - 2015.03.10 13:51:50 - [1301] - Quote Basil Pupkin wrote: Veskrashen wrote: knobber Jobbler wrote: Are you going to be on guard 4 hours a day, every day, waiting at your keyboard to get an alliance mail to say your sov structures in system xyz and 10 others are under attack? Sounds like a job, doesn't sound like fun. Doesn't sound like fleet pvp, gang pvp or eve ~elite~ pvp. It will be annoying and you know it, you're just seeing the alliances of the people making sense and like a bunch of others just being obstinate because you can't bring yourself to agree with a grr gon. Hi. Faction Warfare pilot here. I logged in every day for months and fought constantly because TEST was in CalMil, stationed in Innia, right next to our bastion of Fortress Eha. We killed thousands of ships month in and month out just to hold that one system - and because we undocked, fought, and forced them to bash their heads against the wall... Eha never fell. The fact that you don't have nearly the same level of pride or determination is not my failing, nor that of my alliance. It does, however, speak volumes about you and yours. The fact that you seem to feel that your experience with EHP+timer based Sov objectives somehow invalidates my extensive experience with distributed objective timer based capture mechanics with cumulative impact on system control is... laughable. Fozziesov has FAR more in common with current FW system control mechanics than with anything previously seen in nullsec. Perhaps you all should be paying more attention to the folks who have been living, thriving, and winning under those mechanics for some time now. Or, yanno, fail to adapt and whine on the forums. Up to you I suppose. Not to bash on your experience, but it's just one (ok, handful) of systems. And the talk here is about hundreds. Sounds like a nice step up from the lowsec little leagues? SoulLess Zealot wrote: Lol in four posts you havent added anything relevant to the conversation Four? I gave up counting after the first hundred.
Dave Stark 7431	Posted - 2015.03.10 13:52:28 - [1302] - Quote Daimus Daranius wrote: Dave Stark wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: Daimus Daranius wrote: even when people like God's Apples are giving them exact fits that are perfect counter to trollceptors. his idea was garbage fyi and would not work and still doesn't address that dealing with trollceptors is going to be boring, tedious, uninteresting, and just reinventing the problem of "weaponized boredom" Is it going to be more boring than the current structure grind? And if attackers are willing to devote more time, resources and commitment than defenders then I think they deserve the system. yeah. I'd actually honestly grind structures. once i'm at the structure i can be mostly afk and avoid the boring part entirely. this new system pretty much forces you to endure the bordom for 4 hours. so seriously, i would rather shoot structures than chase interceptors around for 4 hours a day. except the entire point of trollceptors is to not devote resources or commitment to it, yet defenders are forced to do it. which is why it's boring, defenders are doing something that's going to result in minimal interaction and/or content for anyone. as some one who doesn't currently participate in sov - this new system does absolutely nothing to make me want to change that. between the "prime time" window mechanic, and the fact that during that prime time you're going to be chasing ships designed to not get caught... i could think of many, many other things i'd rather be doing. shooting structures makes it on to that list.
Carniflex StarHunt Mordus Angels 325	Posted - 2015.03.10 13:55:57 - [1303] - Quote I am trying to figure out what it is that goons are trying to hide by distracting everyone with trollceptor boogieman campaign. I know they have at least handful of pilots with fistful of braincells to rub together so I find it exceptionally hard to believe that they are genuinely worried about "trollceptor". This must be some kind of clever campaign to keep everyone focused on that non-issue. If I would want to harass deep null systems I would personally pick something more suitable than a interceptor for that. A recon ship or T3, flex my cyno net and blops alts. Bring some friends along for the ride capable of killing "too small" response forces, etc. Here, sanity... niiiice sanity, come to daddy... okay, that's a good sanity... THWONK! GOT the bastard.
Eli Apol Pro Synergy 352	Posted - 2015.03.10 13:58:57 - [1304] - Quote Carniflex wrote: I am trying to figure out what it is that goons are trying to hide by distracting everyone with trollceptor boogieman campaign. I know they have at least handful of pilots with fistful of braincells to rub together so I find it exceptionally hard to believe that they are genuinely worried about "trollceptor". This must be some kind of clever campaign to keep everyone focused on that non-issue. If I would want to harass deep null systems I would personally pick something more suitable than a interceptor for that. A recon ship or T3, flex my cyno net and blops alts. Bring some friends along for the ride capable of killing "too small" response forces, etc. The same thought had struck me. I thought they were supposed to be good at this political metagaming so I've been looking for the hidden angles that they're hoping to get swept under the rug. Then I look at the quality of the opposition that's been coming to the forums under their banner and I just think they can't be bothered to try anymore. Also in addition to your list there's WH's behind the lines - I can see bomber's bar having a field-day with their Thera staging - if they can be bothered to contest sov that is.
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 664	Posted - 2015.03.10 14:00:59 - [1305] - Quote Carniflex wrote: If I would want to harass deep null systems I would personally pick something more suitable than a interceptor for that. A recon ship or T3, flex my cyno net and blops alts. Bring some friends along for the ride capable of killing "too small" response forces, etc. pretty sure moa has no pilots willing to field that much isk, given the candor of their hotdrops over the last 6 months also that comp is fine to me, it can be caught and executed
Dras Malar Cloak and Daggers Fidelas Constans 7	Posted - 2015.03.10 14:00:59 - [1306] - Quote Daimus Daranius wrote: The amount of goon tears in this thread is causing a flood of biblical proportions, and their reactions are silly even when people like God's Apples are giving them exact fits that are perfect counter to trollceptors. If cloaking modules didn't exist today and were about to be introduced in the next update then Goons would be now crying about how unkillable and uncounterable afk cloakers will be. Of course, large nullsec blocks will lose some sov under the new system, but that's a step in the right direction, since blue donut is bad for EVE. Carniflex wrote: I am trying to figure out what it is that goons are trying to hide by distracting everyone with trollceptor boogieman campaign. Goons hate this idea - therefore, it must be good. It couldn't possibly be that people who actually have nullsec sovereignty might be concerned about game mechanics regarding nullsec sovereignty in general. You think it won't be Goons who will be using the trollceptor? I know I'll be getting in one immediately. If you don't have sov, and you've never had sov, and you have no intention of having sov, or finding out what it means to get it or keep it, what are you even doing in this thread?
Zazad Antollare Enlightened Industries Goonswarm Federation 2	Posted - 2015.03.10 14:02:30 - [1307] - Quote i only speak for my self as a null sec player, being in goonswarm has nothing to do with my opinion
Eli Apol Pro Synergy 352	Posted - 2015.03.10 14:05:30 - [1308] - Quote Dras Malar wrote: If you don't have sov, and you've never had sov, and you have no intention of having sov, or finding out what it means to get it or keep it, what are you even doing in this thread? I was never interested in playing n+1 supercap battles to contest sov but the upcoming changes make me very interested. So yeah I guess I do have intentions now, I guess I get to stay in the thread yay :)
Lucretia DeWinter Dirt Nap Squad Dirt Nap Squad. 204	Posted - 2015.03.10 14:06:41 - [1309] - Quote SOV laser shares similar mechanic to Cynosural Field Generator? Control the gird - cos your "F1 for SOV" ships ain't moving.
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 664	Posted - 2015.03.10 14:07:15 - [1310] - Quote Eli Apol wrote: Dras Malar wrote: If you don't have sov, and you've never had sov, and you have no intention of having sov, or finding out what it means to get it or keep it, what are you even doing in this thread? I was never interested in playing n+1 supercap battles to contest sov but the upcoming changes make me very interested. So yeah I guess I do have intentions now, I guess I get to stay in the thread yay :) how many more SOE missions will you need to grind before you are ready for sov

Eli Apol Pro Synergy 353	Posted - 2015.03.10 14:08:58 - [1311] - Quote Promiscuous Female wrote: Eli Apol wrote: Dras Malar wrote: If you don't have sov, and you've never had sov, and you have no intention of having sov, or finding out what it means to get it or keep it, what are you even doing in this thread? I was never interested in playing n+1 supercap battles to contest sov but the upcoming changes make me very interested. So yeah I guess I do have intentions now, I guess I get to stay in the thread yay :) how many more SOE missions will you need to grind before you are ready for sov Yet again showing your ignorance. PS salvages missions not grind them...and since I rarely ever use this toon except on the forums, I do neither. Was that useless post 189? edit: Tell you what, I'll drop corp to prevent that distracting you from the points in hand.
Daimus Daranius 24th Imperial Crusade Amarr Empire 11	Posted - 2015.03.10 14:13:14 - [1312] - Quote Promiscuous Female wrote: Daimus Daranius wrote: even when people like God's Apples are giving them exact fits that are perfect counter to trollceptors. his idea was garbage fyi and would not work Why? Because damps can't actually kill a trollceptor? A trollceptor pilot that's going to be damped everytime he activates his sov laser is gonna get bored very quickly. And even though I wouldn't mind to see an additional penalty put on Entosis link (like +20% addition to ship's mass), I have a feeling that you'll be still unhappy and say something like "that's still no good since they'll just bring more ceptors than we can catch". Despite all your whine about trollceptors I think sov lasers will be much more commonly put on T3 cruisers. Amarr Victor!
Querns GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 1449	Posted - 2015.03.10 14:15:56 - [1313] - Quote Eli Apol wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: Eli Apol wrote: Dras Malar wrote: If you don't have sov, and you've never had sov, and you have no intention of having sov, or finding out what it means to get it or keep it, what are you even doing in this thread? I was never interested in playing n+1 supercap battles to contest sov but the upcoming changes make me very interested. So yeah I guess I do have intentions now, I guess I get to stay in the thread yay :) how many more SOE missions will you need to grind before you are ready for sov Yet again showing your ignorance. PS salvages missions not grind them...and since I rarely ever use this toon except on the forums, I do neither. Was that useless post 189? edit: Tell you what, I'll drop corp to prevent that distracting you from the points in hand. I don't think it's out of line to say that, as a player who willingly admits to spending his time salvaging mission sites in empire, your opinions on sov are fairly irrelevant. This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
Dave Stark 7432	Posted - 2015.03.10 14:17:00 - [1314] - Quote Daimus Daranius wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: Daimus Daranius wrote: even when people like God's Apples are giving them exact fits that are perfect counter to trollceptors. his idea was garbage fyi and would not work Why? Because damps can't actually kill a trollceptor? A trollceptor pilot that's going to be damped everytime he activates his sov laser is gonna get bored very quickly. And even though I wouldn't mind to see an additional penalty put on Entosis link (like +20% addition to ship's mass), I have a feeling that you'll be still unhappy and say something like "that's still no good since they'll just bring more ceptors than we can catch". Despite all your whine about trollceptors I think sov lasers will be much more commonly put on T3 cruisers. you say that like chasing and damping the same inty for 4 hours is fun...
Eli Apol Pro Synergy 353	Posted - 2015.03.10 14:17:34 - [1315] - Quote Querns wrote: Eli Apol wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: Eli Apol wrote: Dras Malar wrote: If you don't have sov, and you've never had sov, and you have no intention of having sov, or finding out what it means to get it or keep it, what are you even doing in this thread? I was never interested in playing n+1 supercap battles to contest sov but the upcoming changes make me very interested. So yeah I guess I do have intentions now, I guess I get to stay in the thread yay :) how many more SOE missions will you need to grind before you are ready for sov Yet again showing your ignorance. PS salvages missions not grind them...and since I rarely ever use this toon except on the forums, I do neither. Was that useless post 189? edit: Tell you what, I'll drop corp to prevent that distracting you from the points in hand. I don't think it's out of line to say that, as a player who willingly admits to spending his time salvaging mission sites in empire, your opinions on sov are fairly irrelevant. "and since I rarely ever use this toon except on the forums, I do neither." Try training comprehension to V
Querns GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 1449	Posted - 2015.03.10 14:18:19 - [1316] - Quote Eli Apol wrote: "and since I rarely ever use this toon except on the forums, I do neither." Try training comprehension to V Oh, I understood what you said just fine -- I just think you're a liar. This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
Eli Apol Pro Synergy 353	Posted - 2015.03.10 14:19:43 - [1317] - Quote Querns wrote: Eli Apol wrote: "and since I rarely ever use this toon except on the forums, I do neither." Try training comprehension to V Oh, I understood what you said just fine -- I just think you're a liar. Feel free to check the freely available PS spreadsheet and see just how much salvaging I've done over the past year...one evening when I was bored and my mains were otherwise disposed. Let me fetch that link for you. sec edit: linky - Feb 24th to Mar 2nd was the period in which I salvaged for about 2hrs and earned a paltry 30m :) Now instead of attempting to attack the man, try and attack his points
Querns GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 1449	Posted - 2015.03.10 14:23:02 - [1318] - Quote Eli Apol wrote: Querns wrote: Eli Apol wrote: "and since I rarely ever use this toon except on the forums, I do neither." Try training comprehension to V Oh, I understood what you said just fine -- I just think you're a liar. Feel free to check the freely available PS spreadsheet and see just how much salvaging I've done over the past year...one evening when I was bored and my mains were otherwise disposed. Let me fetch that link for you. sec You're sure taking a lot of time to prove you aren't irrelevant to the discussion. Why not, instead, do something to prove you are relevant? I feel like posting on a highsec salvaging character is not doing you any favors here. This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
Eli Apol Pro Synergy 353	Posted - 2015.03.10 14:25:26 - [1319] - Quote Querns wrote: Eli Apol wrote: Querns wrote: Eli Apol wrote: "and since I rarely ever use this toon except on the forums, I do neither." Try training comprehension to V Oh, I understood what you said just fine -- I just think you're a liar. Feel free to check the freely available PS spreadsheet and see just how much salvaging I've done over the past year...one evening when I was bored and my mains were otherwise disposed. Let me fetch that link for you. sec You're sure taking a lot of time to prove you aren't irrelevant to the discussion. Why not, instead, do something to prove you are relevant? I feel like posting on a highsec salvaging character is not doing you any favors here. Many many alts post here, why not me, what've I done wrong? Argued my points? Pointed out inconsistencies in yours? Boohoo, #dealwithit
Querns GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 1449	Posted - 2015.03.10 14:27:46 - [1320] - Quote 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? This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.

GeeShizzle MacCloud 537	Posted - 2015.03.10 14:39:12 - [1321] - 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: Use their guns Use ECM 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.
Alp Khan GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 296	Posted - 2015.03.10 14:39:28 - [1322] - Quote Querns wrote: Eli Apol wrote: "and since I rarely ever use this toon except on the forums, I do neither." Try training comprehension to V Oh, I understood what you said just fine -- I just think you're a liar. He still doesn't make sense, even when he is doing something else other than commenting on sovereignty and null. He has gotten called out when he drew attention on him with his comments that were incredibly nonsensical for anyone who lived in sovereign null. That's when he started to tip-toe the line of being an alt of a mythical sovereign null resident, and not just a high-sec salvager.
Dave Stark 7434	Posted - 2015.03.10 14:41:39 - [1323] - Quote Querns wrote: Why should CCP listen to a person in a highsec salvaging corp for opinions on sov? because that's who they're trying to attract to null.
Eli Apol Pro Synergy 353	Posted - 2015.03.10 14:42:18 - [1324] - Quote Alp Khan wrote: Querns wrote: Eli Apol wrote: "and since I rarely ever use this toon except on the forums, I do neither." Try training comprehension to V Oh, I understood what you said just fine -- I just think you're a liar. He still doesn't make sense, even when he is doing something else other than commenting on sovereignty and null. He has gotten called out when he drew attention on him with his comments that were incredibly nonsensical for anyone who lived in sovereign null. That's when he started to tip-toe the line of being an alt of a mythical sovereign null resident, and not just a high-sec salvager. Citation please? Members of your coalition tried multiple ad-hominems and failed because I'm anonymous. It's great this game of alts isn't it? "Your argument isn't valid because of who you are therefore I should dismiss it" doesn't really work does it? Anyway, back to the discussion eh?
Aryth GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 1705	Posted - 2015.03.10 14:44:01 - [1325] - Quote 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? Be fair. There is at least one reason as you well know... Leader of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal. Vile Rat: You're the greatest sociopath that has ever played eve.
Dave Stark 7434	Posted - 2015.03.10 14:45:03 - [1326] - Quote GeeShizzle MacCloud wrote: 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: Use their guns Use ECM 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. 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".
Erasmus Grant EVE University Ivy League 20	Posted - 2015.03.10 14:58:10 - [1327] - Quote GTA V is looking more and more appealing.
GeeShizzle MacCloud 537	Posted - 2015.03.10 15:00:25 - [1328] - 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.
Dave Stark 7434	Posted - 2015.03.10 15:02:52 - [1329] - Quote GeeShizzle MacCloud wrote: 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. so you're just telling me that you shouldn't be allowed to use sniper fleets to take sov? got it. i'm not contradicting anything, evading a fight by not engaging, and sitting at your optimal death dealing range are two obviously different things, but if you just want to be a complete ****** and not actually discuss the topic and go "lulz contradiction" because you're a bellend then whatever. 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.
knobber Jobbler Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 526	Posted - 2015.03.10 15:03:11 - [1330] - Quote Carniflex wrote: I am trying to figure out what it is that goons are trying to hide by distracting everyone with trollceptor boogieman campaign. I know they have at least handful of pilots with fistful of braincells to rub together so I find it exceptionally hard to believe that they are genuinely worried about "trollceptor". This must be some kind of clever campaign to keep everyone focused on that non-issue. If I would want to harass deep null systems I would personally pick something more suitable than a interceptor for that. A recon ship or T3, flex my cyno net and blops alts. Bring some friends along for the ride capable of killing "too small" response forces, etc. Don't confused constructive criticism of bad game design for your assumption that we're actually worried about something that is more than clearly a mechanic that will work in our favour.

Eli Apol Definitely a nullsec alt 353	Posted - 2015.03.10 15:08:33 - [1331] - Quote knobber Jobbler wrote: Carniflex wrote: I am trying to figure out what it is that goons are trying to hide by distracting everyone with trollceptor boogieman campaign. I know they have at least handful of pilots with fistful of braincells to rub together so I find it exceptionally hard to believe that they are genuinely worried about "trollceptor". This must be some kind of clever campaign to keep everyone focused on that non-issue. If I would want to harass deep null systems I would personally pick something more suitable than a interceptor for that. A recon ship or T3, flex my cyno net and blops alts. Bring some friends along for the ride capable of killing "too small" response forces, etc. Don't confused constructive criticism of bad game design for your assumption that we're actually worried about something that is more than clearly a mechanic that will work in our favour. on offense - spend more time than the defenders doing it. on defence - incredibly easy to counter, in most cases with far fewer pilots. I fail to see an advantage for anyone using this whether they have one-hundred or one-hundred thousand members. It's a failed exploit. Sounded great on paper on TMC but dissolved under scrutiny. edit: Yay my corp updated.
GeeShizzle MacCloud 537	Posted - 2015.03.10 15:17:55 - [1332] - 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.
Xavi Bastanold Koalas In The Rain 44	Posted - 2015.03.10 15:19:39 - [1333] - Quote Why not just say use of an entosis link requires a capsuleer's full attention and a ship with an active entosis link must remain stationary? Set times down to something lower for t1, like 3 minutes, to compensate. A structure can still be inundated by a large number of stationary entosis linked ships, but they will be sitting ducks. If 5 are usurping a structure and one survives within the time frame required, it's ops success. Good hunting, Xavi
Dave Stark 7434	Posted - 2015.03.10 15:21:26 - [1334] - Quote GeeShizzle MacCloud wrote: 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 have some inalienable right to sov lazer someting from 250km's away. but we've just discussed this. the sniper fleet isn't using evasion tactics and other irrelevant drivvel that you want to continue to harp on about. they warp in at their optimal, and commence fighting. they then lose by default because their optimal is >25km, this is a **** system that just excludes any fleet that engages from over 25km when they come up against a fleet that can fight with them for a greater lenght of time than it takes to capture a node. repeating myself gets boring quickly, i'd rather i didn't have to. that all depends on how intentionally dense you want to be, though.
Aralyn Cormallen Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation 855	Posted - 2015.03.10 15:23:37 - [1335] - Quote Dave Stark wrote: so you're just telling me that you shouldn't be allowed to use sniper fleets to take sov? got it. i'm not contradicting anything, evading a fight by not engaging, and sitting at your optimal death dealing range are two obviously different things, but if you just want to be a complete ****** and not actually discuss the topic and go "lulz contradiction" because you're an idiot then whatever. 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. I'm not sure a range restrictions unnecessarily harms sniper doctrines; No-one is taking anything with an enemy sniper fleet sitting in range, as anyone who turns on a sov-laser is getting alphad off the field. If the snipers are getting continually forced to ping around, so they can't engage the sov-taking ship on the other side, well, they wouldn't be using a sov-laser anyway, as that ship would be left behind and torn apart first time they ping. If anything, a long-range sov-laser places excess advantage to sniper doctrines as when facing off against a short-range one, they can engage the other fleets sov-lasers while keeping theirs out of range of retaliation, meaning it is the brawler doctrines at the disadvantage in trying to capture a grid, and snipers that become preferred. If a range limit is a solution for other problems, I don't see as it needs to be discounted for the sake of snipers, which will be equally able to prevent a grids capture while they a present (and engaging), and equally able to lay claim once they have control of the grid. If a complete lack of range-capture options is a significant problem, can that not be solved with ship classes (for example, Recons already give a range bonus to their EWAR of choice, allow there bonuses to apply to sov-lasers too).
Rthulhu Voynich Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 0	Posted - 2015.03.10 15:33:14 - [1336] - Quote I am not sure this idea was posted before. ItGÇÖs a lot to read. Sorry if someone posted the following before! The Entosis Link is priced at 20 Mil for the T1-Version and 80 Mil for the T2-Version. Why not have two versions for the Link. The first one, letGÇÖs call it GÇ£Entosis Link ReinforceGÇ¥, should cost 40 Mil T1 and 160 Mil T2 (double the original price). To capture a Command Node you need the second one, letGÇÖs call it GÇ£Entosis Link CaptureGÇ¥. Should cost 10 Mil for T1 and 40 Mil for T2 (half the original price). So it has a bit more risk to reinforce something. During the capture event, a lot ships will be destroyed. This helps alliances with a smaller budget.
Dave Stark 7435	Posted - 2015.03.10 15:36:59 - [1337] - Quote Aralyn Cormallen wrote: Dave Stark wrote: so you're just telling me that you shouldn't be allowed to use sniper fleets to take sov? got it. i'm not contradicting anything, evading a fight by not engaging, and sitting at your optimal death dealing range are two obviously different things, but if you just want to be a complete ****** and not actually discuss the topic and go "lulz contradiction" because you're an idiot then whatever. 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. I'm not sure a range restrictions unnecessarily harms sniper doctrines; No-one is taking anything with an enemy sniper fleet sitting in range, as anyone who turns on a sov-laser is getting alphad off the field. If the snipers are getting continually forced to ping around, so they can't engage the sov-taking ship on the other side, well, they wouldn't be using a sov-laser anyway, as that ship would be left behind and torn apart first time they ping. If anything, a long-range sov-laser places excess advantage to sniper doctrines as when facing off against a short-range one, they can engage the other fleets sov-lasers while keeping theirs out of range of retaliation, meaning it is the brawler doctrines at the disadvantage in trying to capture a grid, and snipers that become preferred. If a range limit is a solution for other problems, I don't see as it needs to be discounted for the sake of snipers, which will be equally able to prevent a grids capture while they a present (and engaging), and equally able to lay claim once they have control of the grid. If a complete lack of range-capture options is a significant problem, can that not be solved with ship classes (for example, Recons already give a range bonus to their EWAR of choice, allow there bonuses to apply to sov-lasers too). if your alphaing things off the field then it doesn't matter if they're running a sov laser or not. there's nothing keeping people out of range of retaliation. they're going to be staying on grid so you can warp off, and warp back on top of them, mjd on top of them, etc. 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.
Aralyn Cormallen Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation 855	Posted - 2015.03.10 15:42:54 - [1338] - Quote Rthulhu Voynich wrote: I am not sure this idea was posted before. ItGÇÖs a lot to read. Sorry if someone posted the following before! The Entosis Link is priced at 20 Mil for the T1-Version and 80 Mil for the T2-Version. Why not have two versions for the Link. The first one, letGÇÖs call it GÇ£Entosis Link ReinforceGÇ¥, should cost 40 Mil T1 and 160 Mil T2 (double the original price). To capture a Command Node you need the second one, letGÇÖs call it GÇ£Entosis Link CaptureGÇ¥. Should cost 10 Mil for T1 and 40 Mil for T2 (half the original price). So it has a bit more risk to reinforce something. During the capture event, a lot ships will be destroyed. This helps alliances with a smaller budget. Cost should not, and should never have been a consideration. When dealing with sov-warfare, the cost of these things pales in comparison to the amount spent daily (look at sov costs, POS fuelling bills, jump-fuel for cap ships, and supercaps), and are barely a rounding error in alliance expenditure. Regardless of price, every organisation will be swimming in stockpiles, because they will need to. Even at the fleet level, in a standard fleet, the cost of a dozen e-links disappears in the overall fleet value. Even in the cheapest fleet-comps, slapping an e-link on a line-ship still doesn't bring it up to the value of the couple of dozen logistics and recons in fleet, or anywhere near the value of the fleet boosters, or the FC's brick-tank FC-ship.
FT Diomedes The Graduates Forged of Fire 862	Posted - 2015.03.10 15:53:46 - [1339] - Quote Veskrashen wrote: Phoenix Jones wrote: I've been going over this in my mind. Really the only issues with the module and the ships is speed, interceptor (bubble immunity), cloaky ships, and T3's (cloaky bubble immune). None of those are actually problems. 1. Bubble immunity is an awesome thing - it allows you to get into deep enemy sov space with reasonable effort. You need to have bubble immune ships able to equip and use Entosis Links, because that puts ALL sov space at risk all the same time during your chosen window of vulnerability. There's no ability to secure a "border" and have deep areas of sov null untouchable havens of isk-spewing fountains. 2. Cloaks are also not an issue. If you're cloaked, you have no lock, therefore you can't make any progress. If the defender can undo your work while you're cloaked, you've accomplished nothing. Cloaks don't make you uncatchable or immune to dying - and in fact, since an Entosis Link will keep you from warping off while it's active, you're easier to catch. The only real change that we need to ensure is implemented is that having an Entosis Link active (i.e. still in it's active cycle like Bastion / Triage / Siege) prevents the activation of a cloaking device. If that happens, cloaks will be a viable tool to get yourself into position, but won't help you survive if there's active defenders. 3. Cloaky Nullified T3s have the advantage of being able to penetrate into deep sov space, and have the ability to pick their fights. They are indeed big threats. They are also, however, not invulnerable - you make a lot of tradeoffs to get that cloak and interdiction nullification, in terms of DPS / tank / projection / mobility. If Entosis Links prevent you from re-cloaking while active, Cloaky Nullified T3s will be fairly easy to catch and make for nice tasty shiny killmails when caught. Any reasonable definition of sovereignty includes the ability to secure borders. The Greatest Ship Ever. Credit to Shahfluffers.
Hoshi Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective 55	Posted - 2015.03.10 16:00:16 - [1340] - Quote Sarel Hendar wrote: Hoshi wrote: Sarel Hendar wrote: Big coalitions want to make it possible to bubble down entire constellations from strategic chokepoints while renting the "safe" interior. This should not be allowed. Why not? Everyone is ranting about how you are supposed to defend your space if you want it but here you are coming and saying that one of the few possible ways you can actually do that is not allowed??? If your intention is to actually capture the space then you should have no problem destroying the bubble camp. If your intention is just to "troll" the sov then that thing that should not be allowed my the game mechanics. You should defend your entire space, not just lock down two or three strategic systems one must pass to go into certain constellations. Also note that it's not only the entosis that bubble-immune ceptors make possible. I have some fond recollections of hunting goon afk-tars in Fade and Deklein, pursuit that was impossible before ceptor buff... "Safe" and "nullsec" should be contradictory terms. Yes, yes, even hisec isn't "perfectly" safe, but currently far too large swathes of nullsec are much safer than hisec if you're blue to the ruling coalition. But locking down key systems is defending your space it is not reasonable to require the owners to have a standing deference fleet in every single system. But this is a discussion about attacking sov with the entosis link not about the ability to attack ratters so let's leave that out of the discussion. What is your purpose in attacking the soverginity of that system? A) you want to capture it because you want to live there? B) you want to "troll" the current owners of the system? If A then it's not too much to ask for that you can break through a simple gate camp. If B then the game mechanics should make it as difficult as possible for you. "Memories are meant to fade. They're designed that way for a reason."

Eli Apol Definitely a nullsec alt 353	Posted - 2015.03.10 16:02:33 - [1341] - Quote FT Diomedes wrote: Any reasonable definition of sovereignty includes the ability to secure borders. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states How many of those have 100% secure borders?
GeeShizzle MacCloud 537	Posted - 2015.03.10 16:03:52 - [1342] - 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!
FT Diomedes The Graduates Forged of Fire 862	Posted - 2015.03.10 16:10:06 - [1343] - Quote Daimus Daranius wrote: Dave Stark wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: Daimus Daranius wrote: even when people like God's Apples are giving them exact fits that are perfect counter to trollceptors. his idea was garbage fyi and would not work and still doesn't address that dealing with trollceptors is going to be boring, tedious, uninteresting, and just reinventing the problem of "weaponized boredom" Is it going to be more boring than the current structure grind? And if attackers are willing to devote more time, resources and commitment than defenders then I think they deserve the system. The structure grind is not boring if you employ the proper ships. Grinding sov sucks if you have to use siege fleet (Bombers), but if you can use Dreadnoughts, it is not bad at all. With the jump fatigue changes, it is more practical to use Dreadnoughts, depending on who/where you are fighting. The Greatest Ship Ever. Credit to Shahfluffers.
Dave Stark 7436	Posted - 2015.03.10 16:12:23 - [1344] - Quote GeeShizzle MacCloud wrote: 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 choice and consider a combined arms approach! 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.
Captain H4rlock Hedion University Amarr Empire 0	Posted - 2015.03.10 16:13:07 - [1345] - Quote sayasic wrote: Simple solution: T2 Module requires 150 powergrid. Interceptors and other frigates cannot fit it. Cruisers can but at a moderate price. Battleships and larger the powergrid is near negligable. +1
knobber Jobbler Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 528	Posted - 2015.03.10 16:16:58 - [1346] - Quote Eli Apol wrote: knobber Jobbler wrote: Carniflex wrote: I am trying to figure out what it is that goons are trying to hide by distracting everyone with trollceptor boogieman campaign. I know they have at least handful of pilots with fistful of braincells to rub together so I find it exceptionally hard to believe that they are genuinely worried about "trollceptor". This must be some kind of clever campaign to keep everyone focused on that non-issue. If I would want to harass deep null systems I would personally pick something more suitable than a interceptor for that. A recon ship or T3, flex my cyno net and blops alts. Bring some friends along for the ride capable of killing "too small" response forces, etc. Don't confused constructive criticism of bad game design for your assumption that we're actually worried about something that is more than clearly a mechanic that will work in our favour. on offense - spend more time than the defenders doing it. on defence - incredibly easy to counter, in most cases with far fewer pilots. I fail to see an advantage for anyone using this whether they have one-hundred or one-hundred thousand members. It's a failed exploit. Sounded great on paper on TMC but dissolved under scrutiny. edit: Yay my corp updated - 0% tax if anyone else wants to join! I've not seen any scrutiny which has actually dissolved this as of yet. So far we've had intelligent responses stating what the problem is and they've been met by: FW players who have no concept of more than one system being fought over Canned responses of "You don't deserve to have the sov..." from people who've clearly not taken the time to think about this (or can't) "grr gons are saying it, so must be bad" The same posters who thought Pheobe was good, threatened to come to null and predicted the collapse of the blocs, all of which are proven to be incorrect. People trying to score internet points. People who think alarm clocking system police etc is somehow good for this game/fun. A combination of the above The penultimate one is probably the only valid, rational response.
FT Diomedes The Graduates Forged of Fire 862	Posted - 2015.03.10 16:31:50 - [1347] - Quote Eli Apol wrote: FT Diomedes wrote: Any reasonable definition of sovereignty includes the ability to secure borders. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states How many of those have 100% secure borders? edit: To help you can compare it with this list: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ongoing_armed_conflicts and be very very depressed with the world. No one said 100% secure borders. "The current notion of state sovereignty contains four aspects consisting of territory, population, authority and recognition." If we are going to trade Wikipedia entries you could at least read the complete article: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereignty It is always dangerous trying to base any Eve mechanic on real life, but a sov system that was actually good (and complex) would consider ways to replicate those factors. Instead we get, "Can I haz sovlaser?" The Greatest Ship Ever. Credit to Shahfluffers.
Eli Apol Definitely a nullsec alt 353	Posted - 2015.03.10 16:31:57 - [1348] - Quote Captain H4rlock wrote: sayasic wrote: Simple solution: T2 Module requires 150 powergrid. Interceptors and other frigates cannot fit it. Cruisers can but at a moderate price. Battleships and larger the powergrid is near negligable. +1 I still dislike the grrr ceptors part of this - but tweaking the module itself is definitely the way forwards IF there seems to be a case that trollceptors will function as they were intended. My input: Make it a midslot module = can't stack sebo's, could be fitted instead of tackle mods etc. or Add a targetting range modifier (-50% ?) if you have the module powered up = natural long range ships when gimp fit can reach the upper boundaries of the modules range, other ships will be significantly closer
Carniflex StarHunt Mordus Angels 329	Posted - 2015.03.10 16:32:12 - [1349] - Quote Dave Stark wrote: Daimus Daranius wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: Daimus Daranius wrote: even when people like God's Apples are giving them exact fits that are perfect counter to trollceptors. his idea was garbage fyi and would not work Why? Because damps can't actually kill a trollceptor? A trollceptor pilot that's going to be damped everytime he activates his sov laser is gonna get bored very quickly. And even though I wouldn't mind to see an additional penalty put on Entosis link (like +20% addition to ship's mass), I have a feeling that you'll be still unhappy and say something like "that's still no good since they'll just bring more ceptors than we can catch". Despite all your whine about trollceptors I think sov lasers will be much more commonly put on T3 cruisers. you say that like chasing and damping the same inty for 4 hours is fun... If you read my post 1039 in this thread where I am providing example scenarios for both static sov structure and freshly spawned command bunkers you will see that this trollceptor will die in about 10.. 15 minutes when creating initial timers or is fully neutered in regards of capping bunkers. Death probability depends on the luck of both interceptor and defender. That is against general sniping cormorant fit. If you fit a ship specifically against trollceptor this could be further reduced. Here, sanity... niiiice sanity, come to daddy... okay, that's a good sanity... THWONK! GOT the bastard.
Zloco Crendraven BALKAN EXPRESS Shadow Cartel 667	Posted - 2015.03.10 16:35:35 - [1350] - Quote I red two nice ideas how to make Entosis links work. 1) S/M/L/XL variants to exist. Like this we add a really good flexibility to the mechanics. It can be tuned into the minimal detail. If you got 1 whatever you change it will affect all the ships and then you have to put restrictions on the ships which will make a a mess of the feature/mechanic. 2) The 2nd idea was that only Battlecruisers and Command ships should be able to put links. Bombers and capital ships should be should be balanced accordingly. Imo balancing pvp around BC and BS hulls is the best path to take if we want a balanced game. BALEX, bringing piracy on a whole new level.

Dave Stark 7437	Posted - 2015.03.10 16:37:17 - [1351] - Quote Carniflex wrote: Dave Stark wrote: Daimus Daranius wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: Daimus Daranius wrote: even when people like God's Apples are giving them exact fits that are perfect counter to trollceptors. his idea was garbage fyi and would not work Why? Because damps can't actually kill a trollceptor? A trollceptor pilot that's going to be damped everytime he activates his sov laser is gonna get bored very quickly. And even though I wouldn't mind to see an additional penalty put on Entosis link (like +20% addition to ship's mass), I have a feeling that you'll be still unhappy and say something like "that's still no good since they'll just bring more ceptors than we can catch". Despite all your whine about trollceptors I think sov lasers will be much more commonly put on T3 cruisers. you say that like chasing and damping the same inty for 4 hours is fun... If you read my post 1039 in this thread where I am providing example scenarios for both static sov structure and freshly spawned command bunkers you will see that this trollceptor will die in about 10.. 15 minutes when creating initial timers or is fully neutered in regards of capping bunkers. Death probability depends on the luck of both interceptor and defender. That is against general sniping cormorant fit. If you fit a ship specifically against trollceptor this could be further reduced. i'm sorry post 1039 and every single goddamn post of yours since then neglects to explain how it's actually fun to spend 4hrs a day chasing interceptors you've got like a 75% chance of not killing (or whatever statistic you pulled out of your ass). perchance, is that because it simply isn't?
Captain H4rlock Hedion University Amarr Empire 0	Posted - 2015.03.10 16:41:00 - [1352] - Quote Zloco Crendraven wrote: I red two nice ideas how to make Entosis links work. . Imo balancing pvp around BC and BS hulls is the best path to take if we want a balanced game. +1
Eli Apol Definitely a nullsec alt 353	Posted - 2015.03.10 16:43:16 - [1353] - Quote Dave Stark wrote: i'm sorry post 1039 and every single goddamn post of yours since then neglects to explain how it's actually fun to spend 4hrs a day chasing interceptors you've got like a 75% chance of not killing (or whatever statistic you pulled out of your ass). perchance, is that because it simply isn't? It's because you don't need to chase it. You defend your current system and when it moves on to another system, the locals there can defend against it. No chasing required.
Dave Stark 7437	Posted - 2015.03.10 16:53:31 - [1354] - Quote Eli Apol wrote: Dave Stark wrote: i'm sorry post 1039 and every single goddamn post of yours since then neglects to explain how it's actually fun to spend 4hrs a day chasing interceptors you've got like a 75% chance of not killing (or whatever statistic you pulled out of your ass). perchance, is that because it simply isn't? It's because you don't need to chase it. You defend your current system and when it moves on to another system, the locals there can defend against it. No chasing required. you don't chase it, it comes back 5 mins later. we do the same dance every 5 mins for 4 hours. how's this interesting and/or engaging gameplay?
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen Origin. Black Legion. 2016	Posted - 2015.03.10 16:53:41 - [1355] - Quote Clearly what is needed here is another mini-game, where the first Entosis agressor duels the first Entosis defender in a TRON like world of flying discs and hot AI's in pleather onesies... ...Oh, and make the Entosis range only 2,500m. That is all. F Would you like to know more?
Iski Zuki DaSen Icarus Academy 11	Posted - 2015.03.10 16:54:45 - [1356] - Quote When i like to play with small ships frigates and destros i go to FW when i want to conquer something i think i might need a bigger boat E-Link can be fitted in : Ceptors frigates destroyers = NO Cruisers = Maybe Battlecruisers = YES YES HELL YES ( brings a reason for peeps to actually use them once again ) Batleships =yes Carriers= maybe Supers= NO NO NO HELL NO also i dont like the idea of the skill.. "hey i can jump clone i can go and conquer the world also now" it should be under "Corporation Managment" group of skills
Carniflex StarHunt Mordus Angels 329	Posted - 2015.03.10 16:57:49 - [1357] - Quote knobber Jobbler wrote: Eli Apol wrote: knobber Jobbler wrote: Carniflex wrote: I am trying to figure out what it is that goons are trying to hide by distracting everyone with trollceptor boogieman campaign. I know they have at least handful of pilots with fistful of braincells to rub together so I find it exceptionally hard to believe that they are genuinely worried about "trollceptor". This must be some kind of clever campaign to keep everyone focused on that non-issue. If I would want to harass deep null systems I would personally pick something more suitable than a interceptor for that. A recon ship or T3, flex my cyno net and blops alts. Bring some friends along for the ride capable of killing "too small" response forces, etc. Don't confused constructive criticism of bad game design for your assumption that we're actually worried about something that is more than clearly a mechanic that will work in our favour. on offense - spend more time than the defenders doing it. on defence - incredibly easy to counter, in most cases with far fewer pilots. I fail to see an advantage for anyone using this whether they have one-hundred or one-hundred thousand members. It's a failed exploit. Sounded great on paper on TMC but dissolved under scrutiny. edit: Yay my corp updated - 0% tax if anyone else wants to join! I've not seen any scrutiny which has actually dissolved this as of yet. So far we've had intelligent responses stating what the problem is and they've been met by: FW players who have no concept of more than one system being fought over Canned responses of "You don't deserve to have the sov..." from people who've clearly not taken the time to think about this (or can't) "grr gons are saying it, so must be bad" The same posters who thought Pheobe was good, threatened to come to null and predicted the collapse of the blocs, all of which are proven to be incorrect. People trying to score internet points. People who think alarm clocking system police etc is somehow good for this game/fun. A combination of the above The penultimate one is probably the only valid, rational response. Read post 1039 in this thread. I posted both scenarios (reinforcing and capturing) with trollceptor and provided an example setup that could be used to counter it. Both sides having only single ship in local. Here, sanity... niiiice sanity, come to daddy... okay, that's a good sanity... THWONK! GOT the bastard.
Carniflex StarHunt Mordus Angels 329	Posted - 2015.03.10 17:03:55 - [1358] - Quote Dave Stark wrote: i'm sorry post 1039 and every single goddamn post of yours since then neglects to explain how it's actually fun to spend 4hrs a day chasing interceptors you've got like a 75% chance of not killing (or whatever statistic you pulled out of your ass). perchance, is that because it simply isn't? In that example it is clear that one does not need to "spend 4hrs a day chasing interceptors". It dies in about 4 tries of creating a timer against a standard cormorant. All it takes is having someone in local willing to respond to a solo inty poking at structure within about 7-8 minutes or so. Feel free to provide counter example scenario with numbers how a trollceptor would be invincible herald of doom. Just moaning how it is so is not particularly convincing. Here, sanity... niiiice sanity, come to daddy... okay, that's a good sanity... THWONK! GOT the bastard.
Eli Apol Definitely a nullsec alt 353	Posted - 2015.03.10 17:05:02 - [1359] - Quote Dave Stark wrote: Eli Apol wrote: Dave Stark wrote: i'm sorry post 1039 and every single goddamn post of yours since then neglects to explain how it's actually fun to spend 4hrs a day chasing interceptors you've got like a 75% chance of not killing (or whatever statistic you pulled out of your ass). perchance, is that because it simply isn't? It's because you don't need to chase it. You defend your current system and when it moves on to another system, the locals there can defend against it. No chasing required. you don't chase it, it comes back 5 mins later. we do the same dance every 5 mins for 4 hours. how's this interesting and/or engaging gameplay? It sounds incredibly boring for the attacker too - which is why it probably won't be used against well defended space except as a form of questionable attrition... Also the defender can wait until just before the system is RF'd before deciding to act = trollceptor does his dance upto every 38 minutes and gets negated by each individual defender spending 1/4 of the time that he does in each system. Seriously read the thread, this has all been covered.
Dave Stark 7438	Posted - 2015.03.10 17:06:06 - [1360] - Quote Carniflex wrote: Dave Stark wrote: i'm sorry post 1039 and every single goddamn post of yours since then neglects to explain how it's actually fun to spend 4hrs a day chasing interceptors you've got like a 75% chance of not killing (or whatever statistic you pulled out of your ass). perchance, is that because it simply isn't? In that example it is clear that one does not need to "spend 4hrs a day chasing interceptors". It dies in about 4 tries of creating a timer against a standard cormorant. All it takes is having someone in local willing to respond to a solo inty poking at structure within about 7-8 minutes or so. Feel free to provide counter example scenario with numbers how a trollceptor would be invincible herald of doom. Just moaning how it is so is not particularly convincing. by the way your post isn't 1039 or whatever, it got moved cos the ISDs cleaned the thread. i didn't say it was a herald of doom, ***** read. i just said it's boring as to deal with them; of which nobody has offered a counter argument of how fun, and entertaining it is to constantly spend every 10 mins trying to shoot a ship designed not to be shot at. however let's just ignore that fact because it doesn't fit the narrative of "it's so easy to counter" nobody gives a ** how easy it is to counter because nobody will bother because it's boring. we simply shouldn't be advocating a boring idea no matter how "balanced" or "easy to counter" it is.

Eli Apol Definitely a nullsec alt 353	Posted - 2015.03.10 17:07:36 - [1361] - Quote Dave Stark wrote: nobody gives a **** how easy it is to counter because nobody will bother because it's boring. Hit the nail on the head finally. It's upto 4x as boring for the attacker, so remind me how this is effective trolling or griefing?
GeeShizzle MacCloud 537	Posted - 2015.03.10 17:10:32 - [1362] - 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.
Dave Stark 7438	Posted - 2015.03.10 17:12:48 - [1363] - Quote Eli Apol wrote: Dave Stark wrote: nobody gives a **** how easy it is to counter because nobody will bother because it's boring. Hit the nail on the head finally. It's upto 4x as boring for the attacker, so remind me how this is effective trolling or griefing? because if you don't waste your time going and defending a node people aren't really trying to capture, you end up with multiple instances of the same crap you then have to defend in the same potentially boring and uninteresting manner or you lose your sov/ihub/station. that's how it's effective. you're forced to endure boring content or lose sov basically. do we really have to cover the same old ground?
Eli Apol Definitely a nullsec alt 353	Posted - 2015.03.10 17:16:09 - [1364] - Quote Dave Stark wrote: Eli Apol wrote: Dave Stark wrote: nobody gives a **** how easy it is to counter because nobody will bother because it's boring. Hit the nail on the head finally. It's upto 4x as boring for the attacker, so remind me how this is effective trolling or griefing? because if you don't waste your time going and defending a node people aren't really trying to capture, you end up with multiple instances of the same crap you then have to defend in the same potentially boring and uninteresting manner or you lose your sov/ihub/station. that's how it's effective. you're forced to endure boring content or lose sov basically That sounds like a fair game of attrition. The attacker puts up 4x the manhours as the defender to grind them into submission. I don't really see the problem there.
Nolak Ataru KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 768	Posted - 2015.03.10 17:18:46 - [1365] - Quote Eli Apol wrote: [quote=Querns]Now instead of attempting to attack the man, try and attack his points Sure. Raise a few points and we'll attack em. Still waiting for any meaningful argument from you in the ISBoxer thread btw.
Dave Stark 7439	Posted - 2015.03.10 17:18:50 - [1366] - Quote GeeShizzle MacCloud wrote: 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. in that first paragraph the only solutions to my original point of just feeding ships to the meat grinder to capture the point because you can't prevent the capture over 25km away the ecm burst and lockbreaker bombs are the only 2 counters that could potentially work. i'll give you those. while familiar with the function, i'm not familiar with the duration/cooldown of those two things so we'll move on to your final point; 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.
Eli Apol Definitely a nullsec alt 353	Posted - 2015.03.10 17:19:34 - [1367] - Quote Nolak Ataru wrote: Eli Apol wrote: Now instead of attempting to attack the man, try and attack his points Sure. Raise a few points and we'll attack em. Still waiting for any meaningful argument from you in the ISBoxer thread btw. I see you joined goons to cry in this one as well?
Dave Stark 7439	Posted - 2015.03.10 17:19:58 - [1368] - Quote Eli Apol wrote: That sounds like a fair game of attrition. The attacker puts up 4x the manhours as the defender to grind them into submission. I don't really see the problem there. It's the attacker's prerogative - they could actually start a fight instead of using attrition if they desired! again, i honestly couldn't give a stuff about "fair" i'm interested in having a fun and interesting system - the one suggested is far from it.
Carniflex StarHunt Mordus Angels 329	Posted - 2015.03.10 17:20:16 - [1369] - Quote I just noticed its now post # 973 As far "its boring" goes - it is less boring that shooting a structure in my opinion. Sov warfare has been traditionally a battle of will in EVE - until at some point number of supercapitals went so high that will had not much to do with holding a sov anymore - it was just a question of having a critical mass of supers. Shooting trollceptors would be reasonably rewarding activity in addition isk/h wise. Spending about 4.. 5 (1..2 min ship change, about 1 min to try to kill it, 1..2 min ship change back) minutes to a counter one with 25% probability of a kill and 50% probability of 80 mil drop if getting a kill would net roughly 40 mil/tick (a trollceptor kill every 20 minutes but only every second would drop the mod). Sure it will not knock ones socks off but on the other hand it would not be a totally wasted time either isk/h wise. "Its boring" is anyway a bit too general statement. People find different things interesting. I still cant understand, for example, what was going on in the head of ice miner before the ice mining changes but people were actually doing it. Boring to some guy interesting to some other. If I would have a sov and I would have a trollceptor problem where I would be dealing with them 4h straight I would fit a specific ship extra for these guys which would be able to kill one reliably in ~60 seconds or more (which would increase the kill rate to 50%). Here, sanity... niiiice sanity, come to daddy... okay, that's a good sanity... THWONK! GOT the bastard.
Eli Apol Definitely a nullsec alt 353	Posted - 2015.03.10 17:27:59 - [1370] - Quote Dave Stark wrote: Eli Apol wrote: That sounds like a fair game of attrition. The attacker puts up 4x the manhours as the defender to grind them into submission. I don't really see the problem there. It's the attacker's prerogative - they could actually start a fight instead of using attrition if they desired! again, i honestly couldn't give a stuff about "fair" i'm interested in having a fun and interesting system - the one suggested is far from it. This one has the potential to be fun - or an attritional grind - depending on the attacker's objective. The options are: - trololol boredom grind in the defender's favour. (which can be tempered with module changes if necessary, see the OP) - taking undefended sov easily. - forcing someone to undock and hence getting a fight. Concentrating on just one option and ignoring the others because of a TMC article is a bit silly.

Dave Stark 7439	Posted - 2015.03.10 17:28:24 - [1371] - Quote Carniflex wrote: I just noticed its now post # 973 As far "its boring" goes - it is less boring that shooting a structure in my opinion. Sov warfare has been traditionally a battle of will in EVE - until at some point number of supercapitals went so high that will had not much to do with holding a sov anymore - it was just a question of having a critical mass of supers. Shooting trollceptors would be reasonably rewarding activity in addition isk/h wise. Spending about 4.. 5 (1..2 min ship change, about 1 min to try to kill it, 1..2 min ship change back) minutes to a counter one with 25% probability of a kill and 50% probability of 80 mil drop if getting a kill would net roughly 40 mil/tick (a trollceptor kill every 20 minutes but only every second would drop the mod). Sure it will not knock ones socks off but on the other hand it would not be a totally wasted time either isk/h wise. "Its boring" is anyway a bit too general statement. People find different things interesting. I still cant understand, for example, what was going on in the head of ice miner before the ice mining changes but people were actually doing it. Boring to some guy interesting to some other. If I would have a sov and I would have a trollceptor problem where I would be dealing with them 4h straight I would fit a specific ship extra for these guys which would be able to kill one reliably in ~60 seconds or more (which would increase the kill rate to 50%). as some one who has participated in both sov warfare, and ice mining. i can tell you what goes through the head of some one ice mining, or structure bashing. it's the same. it's netflix. can't even watch netflix while doing the boring part of this new sov system.
Terra Chrall Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire 15	Posted - 2015.03.10 17:28:29 - [1372] - Quote 1nverted wrote: It seems incredible that some people are still defending trollceptors in light of Fozzie's original post:. In that post, he said this: 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. One of the points of this thread is to discuss how CCP can avoid trollceptors becoming a thing. I suggest a speed limit of 3500m/s on ships using the entosis link. Goons should stop saying how stupid trollceptors are (that is a given) and start making suggestions as to how to avoid them. The other posters should stop defending the idea of a trollceptor. Fozzie's post says that CCP's focus is to ensure a command node is won by the party controlling the grid. Kiting interceptors at 10,000m/s do not fulfil that goal and will therefore not be allowed. I'm not trying to defend trollceptors, but I am trying to work with what I infer Fozzie's design goal is, namely "light touch" keep it simple and minimal limitations. On paper the Trollceptor looks like it could be a real harassment technique, that if exploited, could remove fun and conflict over Sov. But there are enough people saying they could counter them that maybe they deserve a chance to do so before setting limits on the ELink module. Personally I think the T2 range is too good unless the fitting requirements are high. But since we don't even know those numbers yet, I hope they will cause enough limitations on frigate use that they don't have to impose other arbitrary limits on the module itself.
Gizznitt Malikite Agony Unleashed Agony Empire 4242	Posted - 2015.03.10 17:30:19 - [1373] - Quote Iski Zuki DaSen wrote: When i like to play with small ships frigates and destros i go to FW when i want to conquer something i think i might need a bigger boat E-Link can be fitted in : Ceptors frigates destroyers = NO Cruisers = Maybe Battlecruisers = YES YES HELL YES ( brings a reason for peeps to actually use them once again ) Batleships =yes Carriers= maybe Supers= NO NO NO HELL NO also i dont like the idea of the skill.. "hey i can jump clone i can go and conquer the world also now" it should be under "Corporation Managment" group of skills Imagine a super, stuck on grid for 10 minutes, unable to receive Remote Repair. Why is that a hell no situation?
GeeShizzle MacCloud 537	Posted - 2015.03.10 17:31:53 - [1374] - 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.
Carniflex StarHunt Mordus Angels 329	Posted - 2015.03.10 17:33:50 - [1375] - Quote Dras Malar wrote: Everyone who has never had to defend sov should ask yourselves what you could possibly contribute to this discussion. If I'm in a trollceptor, and you damp me with a Celestis or whatever, I move three systems over and lose you, and start again. I don't even have to go for sov, I'll just turn off station services because it's faster and it creates work for you. This is going to happen every day until we're all too bored to deal with it anymore. And then we'll all just play a different game. (1) If there is no one present in local you can freely to do so regardless of ship used. (2) If there is someone present in local willing to do something about you you will be unsuccessful in that trollceptor and probably die within about 4 tries to create the timer. Exact number depends on what the defender brings. (3) If you are happy to lose about 2-3 trollceptors / hour I am pretty sure there will be defenders willing to farm you grinning all the way through it every day you are willing to do so. Here, sanity... niiiice sanity, come to daddy... okay, that's a good sanity... THWONK! GOT the bastard.
Carniflex StarHunt Mordus Angels 329	Posted - 2015.03.10 17:35:10 - [1376] - Quote Dave Stark wrote: as some one who has participated in both sov warfare, and ice mining. i can tell you what goes through the head of some one ice mining, or structure bashing. it's the same. it's netflix. can't even watch netflix while doing the boring part of this new sov system. They don't show netflix legally outside of US :/ Here, sanity... niiiice sanity, come to daddy... okay, that's a good sanity... THWONK! GOT the bastard.
Nolak Ataru KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 768	Posted - 2015.03.10 17:44:53 - [1377] - Quote Eli Apol wrote: Nolak Ataru wrote: Eli Apol wrote: Now instead of attempting to attack the man, try and attack his points Sure. Raise a few points and we'll attack em. Still waiting for any meaningful argument from you in the ISBoxer thread btw. I see you joined goons to cry in this one as well? Oh look an ad hominem. If you bothered to look, I joined KarmaFleet before the announcement regarding Sov and fighters. But don't let facts get in the way. Let's hear your argument regarding this change.
Eli Apol Definitely a nullsec alt 353	Posted - 2015.03.10 17:49:21 - [1378] - Quote Nolak Ataru wrote: Let's hear your argument regarding this change. Scroll up.
Alavaria Fera GoonWaffe 6602	Posted - 2015.03.10 17:55:03 - [1379] - Quote Carniflex wrote: Dras Malar wrote: Everyone who has never had to defend sov should ask yourselves what you could possibly contribute to this discussion. If I'm in a trollceptor, and you damp me with a Celestis or whatever, I move three systems over and lose you, and start again. I don't even have to go for sov, I'll just turn off station services because it's faster and it creates work for you. This is going to happen every day until we're all too bored to deal with it anymore. And then we'll all just play a different game. (1) If there is no one present in local you can freely to do so regardless of ship used. (2) If there is someone present in local willing to do something about you you will be unsuccessful in that trollceptor and probably die within about 4 tries to create the timer. Exact number depends on what the defender brings. (3) If you are happy to lose about 2-3 trollceptors / hour I am pretty sure there will be defenders willing to farm you grinning all the way through it every day you are willing to do so. So you're -not- going to end our 0.0 nightmare now? I'd feel disappointed but massadeath already said it was for being a merc so i guess it can't get any more disappointing than that ^^ 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 6602	Posted - 2015.03.10 17:59:45 - [1380] - Quote How did it go from "we're gonna use these amazing interceptors to end their 0.0 dream" to "oh it's pointless to try ending their 0.0 dream like this" Or perhaps, this is a clever misdirection? I suppose it is time to see if people are buying up interceptors en masse ^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears. Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.

Eli Apol Definitely a nullsec alt 353	Posted - 2015.03.10 18:03:09 - [1381] - Quote Alavaria Fera wrote: Or perhaps, this is a clever misdirection? I suppose it is time to see if people are buying up interceptors en masse No need, apparently just one per pilot is all you'll need since they never ever die
1Robert McNamara1 The Graduates Forged of Fire 72	Posted - 2015.03.10 18:11:53 - [1382] - Quote I've forgotten some of the restrictions... Can you cloak using the E-Link? Cause if so, **** me.
Nolak Ataru KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 768	Posted - 2015.03.10 18:16:02 - [1383] - Quote Eli Apol wrote: Nolak Ataru wrote: Let's hear your argument regarding this change. Scroll up. I did, and all I really found was ad hominem after strawman after cherry-picking after insult.
Eli Apol Definitely a nullsec alt 353	Posted - 2015.03.10 18:26:05 - [1384] - Quote Nolak Ataru wrote: Eli Apol wrote: Nolak Ataru wrote: Let's hear your argument regarding this change. Scroll up. I did, and all I really found was ad hominem after strawman after cherry-picking after insult. Nice and vague and an absolutely non-commital ad-hominem of your own. Make an actual attempt at engaging with the content of the past 50 pages and try to tackle the points raised instead of trying to make this emotive based upon a prior disagreement in a completely unrelated thread. Or just be a snark, either is absolutely fine by me in an anonymous internet forum about spaceships but only one of them actually has a chance of persuading people of how valid your input is for the discussion at hand.
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 15455	Posted - 2015.03.10 18:36:32 - [1385] - Quote Eli Apol wrote: Nolak Ataru wrote: Eli Apol wrote: Nolak Ataru wrote: Let's hear your argument regarding this change. Scroll up. I did, and all I really found was ad hominem after strawman after cherry-picking after insult. Nice and vague and an absolutely non-commital ad-hominem of your own. Make an actual attempt at engaging with the content of the past 50 pages and try to tackle the points raised instead of trying to make this emotive based upon a prior disagreement in a completely unrelated thread. Or just be a snark, either is absolutely fine by me in an anonymous internet forum about spaceships but only one of them actually has a chance of persuading people of how valid your input is for the discussion at hand. I rubbished every one of your counters and you are still not understanding why these ships would be so bad for the game. So far you only come across as all for cepters because grr goons Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
Carniflex StarHunt Mordus Angels 329	Posted - 2015.03.10 18:42:39 - [1386] - Quote Alavaria Fera wrote: So you're -not- going to end our 0.0 nightmare now? I'd feel disappointed but massadeath already said it was for being a merc so i guess it can't get any more disappointing than that I have been in 0.0 for about a decade now. Seen my fair share of alliances going belly up and all the sov iterations so far. In my experience alliances never die to external factors. What external factors can do, however, is increasing stress a little so that existing cracks can grow to the point entity fractures. To be honest - I do not expect these changes and following MOA harassment to be the deciding factor that pushes the goon block over the edge. Might be enough to trim some fat causing those of weaker will to quit/move greener pastures but I quite expect vast majority of existing 0.0 alliances to be able to adapt. MOA will - most likely - end up with sov every once in a while but it would be rather naive to expect to hold, for example, a conquerable station against the goon block in pure blind when goon block decides to take it back with the full numerical advantage it has. But we will have fights! And to be frank - I personally do not care what is the alliance ticker I'm shooting at. While there are goons holding surrounding regions I shoot goons, when NC or some other fresh large coalition would end up holding it I personally do not believe we would remain blue with surroundings areas without any viable targets nearby for extended period of time ;) If a pvp alliance gets fat and rests on its laurels it will die. That is the nature of null - blood must flow. If it aint you who makes crap bleed it will be you who will be bleeding. Here, sanity... niiiice sanity, come to daddy... okay, that's a good sanity... THWONK! GOT the bastard.
Eli Apol Definitely a nullsec alt 353	Posted - 2015.03.10 18:44:21 - [1387] - Quote baltec1 wrote: I rubbished every one of your counters and you are still not understanding why these ships would be so bad for the game. So far you only come across as all for cepters because grr goons I honestly don't care for any sov group of any size. The fact that goons have been pushing an obvious agenda is the only reason I might appear to be 'grrr goons' They've honestly NEVER had any affect on my online experience except very tedious local spam when I've been in the same systems as them so I'm not sure why I'd be grrr goons except on your say so. My motive is just discussing the mechanics and pointing out they're not as flawed as you insist. A few pages back I suggested that IF the harbingers of doom were correct then make it a midslot module or add a targetting range nerf to it. Then people started with the whole 'but you're just a salvager' shtick which got really tired the first time around, it's nearly as monotonous as the whole 'just where on the doll....' but anyway. I digress. grrrr goons just say "No! Ban ceptors, they're OP because of an article published by our in-house blog!" So yeah if you think the counters don't work, from grid fu to sniping HACs to boosted ceptors to tac dessies with oversized propmods... then just a simple slight tweak of the module stats can completely negate this terrifying tactic WITHOUT removing nullified ships from the potential threats to vacant sov.
Dave Stark 7439	Posted - 2015.03.10 18:46:38 - [1388] - Quote Carniflex wrote: Dave Stark wrote: as some one who has participated in both sov warfare, and ice mining. i can tell you what goes through the head of some one ice mining, or structure bashing. it's the same. it's netflix. can't even watch netflix while doing the boring part of this new sov system. They don't show netflix legally outside of US :/ eve is real, i'm a pirate. that is all.
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 15456	Posted - 2015.03.10 18:53:02 - [1389] - Quote Eli Apol wrote: baltec1 wrote: I rubbished every one of your counters and you are still not understanding why these ships would be so bad for the game. So far you only come across as all for cepters because grr goons I honestly don't care for any sov group of any size. The fact that goons have been pushing an obvious agenda is the only reason I might appear to be 'grrr goons' They've honestly NEVER had any affect on my online experience except very tedious local spam when I've been in the same systems as them so I'm not sure why I'd be grrr goons except on your say so. My motive is just discussing the mechanics and pointing out they're not as flawed as you insist. A few pages back I suggested that IF the harbingers of doom were correct then make it a midslot module or add a targetting range nerf to it. Then people started with the whole 'but you're just a salvager' shtick which got really tired the first time around, it's nearly as monotonous as the whole 'just where on the doll....' but anyway. I digress. grrrr goons just say "No! Ban ceptors, they're OP because of an article published by our in-house blog!" So yeah if you think the counters don't work, from grid fu to sniping HACs to boosted ceptors to tac dessies with oversized propmods... then just a simple slight tweak of the module stats can completely negate this terrifying tactic WITHOUT removing nullified ships from the potential threats to vacant sov. There are only two ways to go about this. Remove destroyers and frigates from being able to fit this mod Reduce to range of said sov laser down to no more than 50km. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
afkalt Republic Military School Minmatar Republic 917	Posted - 2015.03.10 18:56:54 - [1390] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Eli Apol wrote: baltec1 wrote: I rubbished every one of your counters and you are still not understanding why these ships would be so bad for the game. So far you only come across as all for cepters because grr goons I honestly don't care for any sov group of any size. The fact that goons have been pushing an obvious agenda is the only reason I might appear to be 'grrr goons' They've honestly NEVER had any affect on my online experience except very tedious local spam when I've been in the same systems as them so I'm not sure why I'd be grrr goons except on your say so. My motive is just discussing the mechanics and pointing out they're not as flawed as you insist. A few pages back I suggested that IF the harbingers of doom were correct then make it a midslot module or add a targetting range nerf to it. Then people started with the whole 'but you're just a salvager' shtick which got really tired the first time around, it's nearly as monotonous as the whole 'just where on the doll....' but anyway. I digress. grrrr goons just say "No! Ban ceptors, they're OP because of an article published by our in-house blog!" So yeah if you think the counters don't work, from grid fu to sniping HACs to boosted ceptors to tac dessies with oversized propmods... then just a simple slight tweak of the module stats can completely negate this terrifying tactic WITHOUT removing nullified ships from the potential threats to vacant sov. There are only two ways to go about this. Remove destroyers and frigates from being able to fit this mod Reduce to range of said sov laser down to no more than 50km. Seeing as the "complaint" is people will run away and even an idiot can get a cruisers to a <3s align/3s warp and still be fully combat effective, never mind the ridiculous eft warrior crap being vomited forth....this will fix nothing. Of course, the main point of contention is....being able to run away is nowhere near as game breaking as the walls, literal WALLS of posts from half a dozen people would have us believe.

Eli Apol Definitely a nullsec alt 353	Posted - 2015.03.10 18:59:23 - [1391] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Reduce to range of said sov laser down to no more than 50km. So how is reducing sov laser down to 50km different to putting a range nerf of 50% on it (as I suggested moments ago)? I think the % based reduction allows more variation in use - long range battleships and capitals could still be gimp fit to use it at the full 250km range whilst roping in the agile interceptors to more manageable distances. It also allows ships to offline the module whilst not actively contesting and be more viable for combat at their usual ranges. I mean I suggested it and you obviously ignored it in favour of your own much more limiting idea for the module.
Alavaria Fera GoonWaffe 6602	Posted - 2015.03.10 19:03:59 - [1392] - Quote This is a forum, walls of posts are the bare minimum to even be noticeable. ^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears. Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
Mike Azariah The Scope Gallente Federation 2616	Posted - 2015.03.10 19:19:37 - [1393] - Quote 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 Mike Azariah Gö¼GöÇGöÇGö¼n++ ¯\|(pâä)/¯
Borachon GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 35	Posted - 2015.03.10 19:29:46 - [1394] - Quote Eli Apol wrote: A simple slight tweak of the module stats can completely negate this terrifying tactic WITHOUT removing nullified ships from the potential threats to vacant sov. I'm glad you agree with all of the people you've spent the last 30 pages arguing with. 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.
Eli Apol Definitely a nullsec alt 353	Posted - 2015.03.10 19:32:24 - [1395] - Quote Borachon wrote: Eli Apol wrote: A simple slight tweak of the module stats can completely negate this terrifying tactic WITHOUT removing nullified ships from the potential threats to vacant sov. "If you think the counters don't work, from grid fu to sniping HACs to boosted ceptors to tac dessies with oversized propmods to sniping T1 dessies to stealth bombers with rockets to ewar frigs to tanked t1 cruisers to whatever... " Tasty cherries you picked?
GeeShizzle MacCloud 537	Posted - 2015.03.10 19:48:30 - [1396] - 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
Alavaria Fera GoonWaffe 6602	Posted - 2015.03.10 19:51:28 - [1397] - Quote Borachon wrote: Eli Apol wrote: A simple slight tweak of the module stats can completely negate this terrifying tactic WITHOUT removing nullified ships from the potential threats to vacant sov. I'm glad you agree with all of the people you've spent the last 30 pages arguing with. 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. It worked and ensured that everyone wasted their initial energy on this. I guess the stats will appear just before the full release or something fun like that. It's like a sov war, ironically. You need to get the badguys to feel tired... fatigued, if you will, before the real attack begins ^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears. Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
GeeShizzle MacCloud 537	Posted - 2015.03.10 19:52:15 - [1398] - 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
Alavaria Fera GoonWaffe 6602	Posted - 2015.03.10 19:59:02 - [1399] - Quote This is in F&I, like the afk claoking thread, they're basically lightning rods. It's a bore-off, except we thunderdome and ccp doesn't do anything. Though the poor chaps that have to clean the thread... shrug ^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears. Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
GeeShizzle MacCloud 538	Posted - 2015.03.10 20:00:36 - [1400] - 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.

Carniflex StarHunt Mordus Angels 334	Posted - 2015.03.10 20:04:13 - [1401] - Quote Alavaria Fera wrote: Borachon wrote: Eli Apol wrote: A simple slight tweak of the module stats can completely negate this terrifying tactic WITHOUT removing nullified ships from the potential threats to vacant sov. I'm glad you agree with all of the people you've spent the last 30 pages arguing with. 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. It worked and ensured that everyone wasted their initial energy on this. I guess the stats will appear just before the full release or something fun like that. It's like a sov war, ironically. You need to get the badguys to feel tired... fatigued, if you will, before the real attack begins There is many ways of doing the battle of will. For example, grinding structures in stealth bombers ;) In the current meta only problem with that approach is that once you have spent a week doing it the blob arrives and saves the final timer or supercaps drop and nuke your replacement structure in 3 minutes. The "new" way is in essence very similar to the grinding the structure in bombers - just without the possibility of dropping overwhelming blob of supers to get it done faster. Just fielding a single blob will be not the winning strategy either. However, if the attacker, for example, has numerical advantage that advantage can still be leveraged while the defender has the ability to at least try to inflict some losses by ambushing a subgroup that seems to be manageable enough (until the rest of the fleets arrive). There will be more maneuvering involved, more communications between wings/squads probably some new doctrines will emerge - for example - with smaller squads/wings it might be possible that side with supercapital dominance will bring nano-carriers instead of traditional logi which will refit and triage at the contested structure and surely several mobility focused ones. One of the key positive outcomes, which I believe will happen (regardless of the link stats and trollceptor) is emergence of NCO programs for better organized alliances - as it will be beneficial to actually have competent squad and wing commanders giving these certain autonomy as opposed to just filling the slot to pass on fleet boosts. Here, sanity... niiiice sanity, come to daddy... okay, that's a good sanity... THWONK! GOT the bastard.
Sigras Conglomo 1014	Posted - 2015.03.10 20:09:37 - [1402] - Quote 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.
Amyclas Amatin SUNDERING Goonswarm Federation 661	Posted - 2015.03.10 20:12:38 - [1403] - Quote 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 grid. I have 5 ceptors spread in 5 systems of the constellation and give you the finger. 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?"
gascanu Bearing Srl. 200	Posted - 2015.03.10 20:14:50 - [1404] - Quote i really don't understand why CCP wants those sov tools to be fitted on ceptors/frigs; after years and years of needing caps/supercaps for taking sov, now we are going to completely the other extreme around, you only need one ceptor.... like really, can anyone find this a bit ********? how about some balance? why this link "must" be allowed on ceptors? why would anyone use another ship type for harassing sov holders around? a big fight with tidi and caps/supercaps on field can last hours, so while an alliance is involved in one for example, a gang of 20 ceptors/bombers will be able to reinforce half a region with proposed mechanics... really CCP you are going to extreme with this instead of a more "balanced" option
afkalt Republic Military School Minmatar Republic 921	Posted - 2015.03.10 20:16:24 - [1405] - Quote 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.
Amyclas Amatin SUNDERING Goonswarm Federation 661	Posted - 2015.03.10 20:16:29 - [1406] - Quote gascanu wrote: i really don't understand why CCP wants those sov tools to be fitted on ceptors/frigs; after years and years of needing caps/supercaps for taking sov, now we are going to completely the other extreme around, you only need one ceptor.... like really, can anyone find this a bit ********? how about some balance? why this link "must" be allowed on ceptors? why would anyone use another ship type for harassing sov holders around? a big fight with tidi and caps/supercaps on field can last hours, so while an alliance is involved in one for example, a gang of 20 ceptors/bombers will be able to reinforce half a region with proposed mechanics... really CCP you are going to extreme with this instead of a more "balanced" option :purity of doctrinal freedom: 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?"
Eli Apol Definitely a nullsec alt 356	Posted - 2015.03.10 20:18:47 - [1407] - Quote 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. I think that's also why there shouldn't be a hard limit to X km - especially not in sov warfare where you have the potential for massive ships with huge ranges to be on grid if a big fight does escalate. I guess the situation you describe would ultimately be a stalemate over that particular grid but not an unbreakable stalemate. More ships arriving or other grids to fight over offer alternate forms of resolution.
Amyclas Amatin SUNDERING Goonswarm Federation 661	Posted - 2015.03.10 20:19:35 - [1408] - 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. I have 5 ceptors spread in 5 systems of the constellation and give you the finger. You have no presence in another 5 systems of the constellation but somehow feel entitled to "hold" them. Fixed that there. A doesn't imply B. 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?"
Freedom Nadd University of Caille Gallente Federation 1	Posted - 2015.03.10 20:20:17 - [1409] - Quote gascanu wrote: i really don't understand why CCP wants those sov tools to be fitted on ceptors/frigs; after years and years of needing caps/supercaps for taking sov, now we are going to completely the other extreme around, you only need one ceptor.... like really, can anyone find this a bit ********? how about some balance? why this link "must" be allowed on ceptors? why would anyone use another ship type for harassing sov holders around? a big fight with tidi and caps/supercaps on field can last hours, so while an alliance is involved in one for example, a gang of 20 ceptors/bombers will be able to reinforce half a region with proposed mechanics... really CCP you are going to extreme with this instead of a more "balanced" option A basic fact so many who started playing post 2007 fail to realise .... CCP are the biggest trolls involved in this game. The whole ethos of the company was based around making their game as hardcore as possible. EVE grew too big for them, they had to change to a more normal interaction with customers, and then the unmentionable incident happened spawning the yearly popularity contest and Greed is Good, reinforcing that at its core CCP does not give a damn about its players. What we are now seeing is CCP desperately trying to reset the last 7 years. Do they care if their subs drop back to 2007 levels? Not a chance because with their jettisoning of WoD and Seattle they can now concentrate on trolling its players again. They do not want stability, they do not WANT to deal with large fights. If anything they would be perfectly happy with sub 20k online players.
Amyclas Amatin SUNDERING Goonswarm Federation 661	Posted - 2015.03.10 20:22:04 - [1410] - Quote Freedom Nadd wrote: gascanu wrote: i really don't understand why CCP wants those sov tools to be fitted on ceptors/frigs; after years and years of needing caps/supercaps for taking sov, now we are going to completely the other extreme around, you only need one ceptor.... like really, can anyone find this a bit ********? how about some balance? why this link "must" be allowed on ceptors? why would anyone use another ship type for harassing sov holders around? a big fight with tidi and caps/supercaps on field can last hours, so while an alliance is involved in one for example, a gang of 20 ceptors/bombers will be able to reinforce half a region with proposed mechanics... really CCP you are going to extreme with this instead of a more "balanced" option A basic fact so many who started playing post 2007 fail to realise .... CCP are the biggest trolls involved in this game. The whole ethos of the company was based around making their game as hardcore as possible. EVE grew too big for them, they had to change to a more normal interaction with customers, and then the unmentionable incident happened spawning the yearly popularity contest and Greed is Good, reinforcing that at its core CCP does not give a damn about its players. What we are now seeing is CCP desperately trying to reset the last 7 years. Do they care if their subs drop back to 2007 levels? Not a chance because with their jettisoning of WoD and Seattle they can now concentrate on trolling its players again. They do not want stability, they do not WANT to deal with large fights. If anything they would be perfectly happy with sub 20k online players. This is the CCP we deserve. Keep calm and drink from the cup that is given to you. 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?"

GeeShizzle MacCloud 538	Posted - 2015.03.10 20:25:06 - [1411] - 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.
Alavaria Fera GoonWaffe 6603	Posted - 2015.03.10 20:25:43 - [1412] - Quote Amyclas Amatin wrote: Freedom Nadd wrote: gascanu wrote: i really don't understand why CCP wants those sov tools to be fitted on ceptors/frigs; after years and years of needing caps/supercaps for taking sov, now we are going to completely the other extreme around, you only need one ceptor.... like really, can anyone find this a bit ********? how about some balance? why this link "must" be allowed on ceptors? why would anyone use another ship type for harassing sov holders around? a big fight with tidi and caps/supercaps on field can last hours, so while an alliance is involved in one for example, a gang of 20 ceptors/bombers will be able to reinforce half a region with proposed mechanics... really CCP you are going to extreme with this instead of a more "balanced" option A basic fact so many who started playing post 2007 fail to realise .... CCP are the biggest trolls involved in this game. The whole ethos of the company was based around making their game as hardcore as possible. EVE grew too big for them, they had to change to a more normal interaction with customers, and then the unmentionable incident happened spawning the yearly popularity contest and Greed is Good, reinforcing that at its core CCP does not give a damn about its players. What we are now seeing is CCP desperately trying to reset the last 7 years. Do they care if their subs drop back to 2007 levels? Not a chance because with their jettisoning of WoD and Seattle they can now concentrate on trolling its players again. They do not want stability, they do not WANT to deal with large fights. If anything they would be perfectly happy with sub 20k online players. This is the CCP we deserve. Keep calm and drink from the cup that is given to you. The developers we deserve. And we're the worst people. Why did it turn out this wayyyyy Discussion Entosis Link Trolling and Forum Posting ^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears. Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
SilentAsTheGrave Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective 99	Posted - 2015.03.10 20:27:34 - [1413] - Quote Just reposting what seems to have gained some traction in case it was lost in the pages: In regards to the Entosis Link using fuel: I think this is a good idea. Using one Strontium every time you turn the module on would do a few good things. As Mike pointed out earlier along with the original people I'm sure; it would mean there is some form of logistics taking place to contest these systems. Especially when it comes to the outer lying systems. Smaller ships, such as interceptors hint hint, will have to be somewhat selective on what systems to contest and how many times they are willing to try to contest it. If they find themselves dealing with actual defenders active in the system and negating their Entosis Link with their own, they will have wasted time and will need to move on. Even if super zippy, untouchable (allegedly... ) ships do their thing, they can only do it so long before they run out of fuel. The defenders have the luxary of nearby stations and POS's that are common for alliances that own sov to resupply their Entosis Links. Overdrive Injectors, which is used to gain fast speed, have a penalty to cargo space. Food for thought. If players do not like the idea of having to resupply so often with small fast ships, they can use larger ships with bigger cargo bays. These larger ships tend to be much, much slower than tiny fast frigates. Getting the picture now? What the over all effect is it still means abandoned systems can still be captured just as easy as this new sov system wants, without having to subject itself to the mythical Trollceptors that terrorize the dreams of certain groups. What are your thoughts?
afkalt Republic Military School Minmatar Republic 922	Posted - 2015.03.10 20:29:27 - [1414] - Quote Amyclas Amatin wrote: 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. I have 5 ceptors spread in 5 systems of the constellation and give you the finger. You have no presence in another 5 systems of the constellation but somehow feel entitled to "hold" them. Fixed that there. A doesn't imply B. Well then there's no problem. Speaking of, I'm still curious as to the problem. I could fail fit a battlecruiser that aligns so fast it couldnt even be caught by an inty entering the system and troll you with that and still breaks 6.3km/s to break grids. Were I so clinically dumb. So really...when we get down to it...it's the bubbles. People hate that the can't hide behind walls of bubbles. I get that but what is the eve mantra...ah yes...HTFU. Or maybe people just have a fundamental hate for the module and are masking it behind the inty smokescreen. I don't know, I just know I can smell the bullshit wafting from this thread on Saturn.
Alavaria Fera GoonWaffe 6603	Posted - 2015.03.10 20:33:47 - [1415] - Quote It doesn't matter for fast you align etc in other fits because the untargeted area of effect interdiction will stop you no matter what unless you're interdiction nullified... so basically an interceptor or a nullified t3. Some doctrines do use it though (mostly the shooting one person then running tengu) I do get that people like to be able to just ignore the mechanic. It's nice to not be jammable or dampable when you get in certain undockable ships, after all ^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears. Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
Freedom Nadd University of Caille Gallente Federation 1	Posted - 2015.03.10 20:33:59 - [1416] - Quote afkalt wrote: Amyclas Amatin wrote: 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. I have 5 ceptors spread in 5 systems of the constellation and give you the finger. You have no presence in another 5 systems of the constellation but somehow feel entitled to "hold" them. Fixed that there. A doesn't imply B. Well then there's no problem. Speaking of, I'm still curious as to the problem. I could fail fit a battlecruiser that aligns so fast it couldnt even be caught by an inty entering the system and troll you with that and still breaks 6.3km/s to break grids. Were I so clinically dumb. So really...when we get down to it...it's the bubbles. People hate that the can't hide behind walls of bubbles. I get that but what is the eve mantra...ah yes...HTFU. Or maybe people just have a fundamental hate for the module and are masking it behind the inty smokescreen. I don't know, I just know I can smell the bullshit wafting from this thread on Saturn. Or could it just be bad game design and a instinctive dislike of the "Plexing 4 Sov" themepark that CCP seems intent on inflicting on us.
Amyclas Amatin SUNDERING Goonswarm Federation 661	Posted - 2015.03.10 20:34:59 - [1417] - Quote afkalt wrote: Amyclas Amatin wrote: 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. I have 5 ceptors spread in 5 systems of the constellation and give you the finger. You have no presence in another 5 systems of the constellation but somehow feel entitled to "hold" them. Fixed that there. A doesn't imply B. Well then there's no problem. Speaking of, I'm still curious as to the problem. I could fail fit a battlecruiser that aligns so fast it couldnt even be caught by an inty entering the system and troll you with that and still breaks 6.3km/s to break grids. Were I so clinically dumb. So really...when we get down to it...it's the bubbles. People hate that the can't hide behind walls of bubbles. I get that but what is the eve mantra...ah yes...HTFU. Or maybe people just have a fundamental hate for the module and are masking it behind the inty smokescreen. I don't know, I just know I can smell the bullshit wafting from this thread on Saturn. Going by that logic, bubbles shouldn't exist. Honor brawls with module points only right? HTFU and all... 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?"
Alavaria Fera GoonWaffe 6603	Posted - 2015.03.10 20:36:00 - [1418] - Quote Freedom Nadd wrote: Or could it just be bad game design and a instinctive dislike of the "Plexing 4 Sov" themepark that CCP seems intent on inflicting on us. I can't wait to grind some GSF Loyalty Points to prove that I participated in defending deklein from massadeath of moa who committed to ending our 0.0 dream Demonstrating one's loyalty to the cause is the greatest joy in a cold and harsh eve online ^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears. Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
FearlessLittleToaster GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 34	Posted - 2015.03.10 20:36:15 - [1419] - Quote Already published this on The Mittani Dot Com but this is the correct thread so I am leaving it here as well. I propose an additional mechanic be added called Entosis Shock. Entosis shock would be very simple in operation. If a ship with an active Entosis Link stops capturing something before the capture is complete it is immobilized for twenty seconds. This key is to give an interceptor that warped onto the target structure time to catch the attacker, or let a cruiser or destroyer warped to zero by a combat prober close and point. In short it would attach a risk to choosing to run away when reds come to chase you off. The choices forced on the attacker when challenged would be far more interesting than under the current setup. Do they burn off right away to maximize their odds of escape, or stick it out and see if they can kite while still on grid? If an attacker faces a real risk of getting caught do they fit for combat or max speed? Not only would it give attackers a reason to worry about losing their ships, this idea would work quite well with the lore. Entosis implies that the capsuleer running the Entosis Link is either enveloping the operational systems of that structure with his mind or injecting his mind into those systems. ItGÇÖs hardly a stretch that the premature end of that process could be incapacitating for a brief time. If this suggestion was adopted a wider variety of counters would become possible. The only real way to catch a fleeing speed fit interceptor sitting 110km away, even if it cannot warp, is with a faster frigate. With Entosis shock a bomber could actually sneak up on the target and use their lack of a decloaking delay to hit it with a sensor dampener. Another interceptor could fit a damp for much the same purpose. Ewar would be extremely dangerous. Attacking pilots would face a choice between a GÇ£distance tankGÇ¥ to prevent getting caught or being near the target to make sensor damps less effective. A red in local would become a potential threat for the attacker to evaluate instead of just an audience to be tormented. This mechanic would also be minimally disruptive to actual combat; so long as they stayed close enough to the sov structure being reinforced the attacker could fly their ship completely normally. The real problem with the trollceptor is the fact that it cannot be killed unless the pilot screws up or is horribly unlucky. Blowing up spaceships is fun for the defender and will encourage them to defend their space. Chasing uncatchable ships for hours on end will just motivate them to stop logging in. Losing spaceships repeatedly will discourage an attacker who is just in it for the laughs; bathing in the impotent tears of the defender will cause them to troll harder. Whatever changes the dev team chooses to make to the Entosis Link need to address this by making the attacker killable instead of merely counterable. To leave it as is will make content denial the new rule of nullsec, same as the old rule.
Alavaria Fera GoonWaffe 6603	Posted - 2015.03.10 20:39:58 - [1420] - Quote Amyclas Amatin wrote: afkalt wrote: Well then there's no problem. Speaking of, I'm still curious as to the problem. I could fail fit a battlecruiser that aligns so fast it couldnt even be caught by an inty entering the system and troll you with that and still breaks 6.3km/s to break grids. Were I so clinically dumb. So really...when we get down to it...it's the bubbles. People hate that the can't hide behind walls of bubbles. I get that but what is the eve mantra...ah yes...HTFU. Or maybe people just have a fundamental hate for the module and are masking it behind the inty smokescreen. I don't know, I just know I can smell the bullshit wafting from this thread on Saturn. Going by that logic, bubbles shouldn't exist. Honor brawls with module points only right? HTFU and all... Something about off grid boosts, falcon alts, etc etc ^^ 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 6603	Posted - 2015.03.10 20:40:46 - [1421] - Quote Actually, only like nadot renters *use bubbles now. Everyone else doesn't because roaming gangs most prefer to simply ignore bubbles, with... guess what??? Yeah, interceptor gangs. * Only if there are renters there, most of nadot sov is not rented out simply because there's so much. So it's just empty except for I guess moons being mined. ^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears. Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
GeeShizzle MacCloud 538	Posted - 2015.03.10 20:45:19 - [1422] - 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!
SilentAsTheGrave Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective 103	Posted - 2015.03.10 20:49:29 - [1423] - Quote FearlessLittleToaster wrote: I propose an additional mechanic be added called Entosis Shock. Entosis shock would be very simple in operation. If a ship with an active Entosis Link stops capturing something before the capture is complete it is immobilized for twenty seconds. So the moment it gets hit with a damp/ecm it is stuck and will most likely be immediately probed out and killed. I'm really not a fan of root mechanics and this also would ensure anything that is not sporting a brick tank is a non-option. Which of course means getting a brick tank past the few choke points to contest all the AFK style empires further into null would be incredibly difficult. Over all, a terrible idea.
Rowells ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans 2130	Posted - 2015.03.10 20:51:29 - [1424] - Quote Alavaria Fera wrote: Actually, only like nadot renters *use bubbles now. Everyone else doesn't because roaming gangs most prefer to simply ignore bubbles, with... guess what??? Yeah, interceptor gangs. * Only if there are renters there, most of nadot sov is not rented out simply because there's so much. So it's just empty except for I guess moons being mined. I would argue that interceptors were chosen as popularity because of bubbles. People might be willing to use other things more often if clusterbubbles weren't a thing. Not advocating anything there, just observing
Sigras Conglomo 1014	Posted - 2015.03.10 20:53:11 - [1425] - Quote Amyclas Amatin wrote: 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. I have 5 ceptors spread in 5 systems of the constellation and give you the finger. You have no presence in another 5 systems of the constellation but somehow feel entitled to "hold" them. Fixed that there. A doesn't imply B. you two idiots are completely missing the point... Say CCP makes the link module 1 PG and 1 CPU with no cap cost and no other effects, sov warfare will be vagabonds and ishtars because up til now that is the one thing they're not good at in 0.0 In addition to being cheap, risk averse, hard to kill, difficult to catch and lethal in groups, they'll also be able to take and hold sov.
afkalt Republic Military School Minmatar Republic 923	Posted - 2015.03.10 20:54:07 - [1426] - Quote Amyclas Amatin wrote: afkalt wrote: Speaking of, I'm still curious as to the problem. I could fail fit a battlecruiser that aligns so fast it couldnt even be caught by an inty entering the system and troll you with that and still breaks 6.3km/s to break grids. Were I so clinically dumb. So really...when we get down to it...it's the bubbles. People hate that the can't hide behind walls of bubbles. I get that but what is the eve mantra...ah yes...HTFU. Or maybe people just have a fundamental hate for the module and are masking it behind the inty smokescreen. I don't know, I just know I can smell the bullshit wafting from this thread on Saturn. Going by that logic, bubbles shouldn't exist. Honor brawls with module points only right? HTFU and all... Or maybe I have higher expectations of what defending things ought to be. So at least we've bottomed it out now. The "problem"...sorry - witch you're trying hunt - is nullification. The same thing regularly cried about, because it makes inattentive bears, sad pandas.
Harry Saq Blueprint Haus Get Off My Lawn 68	Posted - 2015.03.10 20:57:37 - [1427] - Quote If the desire is to have grid superiority to put the thing on the thing to do the thing, then thing should require 100% attention of the capsuleer to the point of his ship essentially being just out there where he has no way of possibly achieving the objective and focusing on fighting and defending his ship (let alone speed tanking/trolling). This should be accomplished through a completely immersive interface that requires his direct control and input. Originally I proposed the following: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5546663#post5546663 In essence this module could provide a bridge that is the way to bring in a dust514 interface or a Valkyrie interface, to provide some objective that the capsuleer running the entosis link must achieve, that keeps him fully engaged (and preferably entertained, since this is a game after all). However, since "This is Eve"...oh wait, not the cool vid, but the harsh reality that most updates and features are primarily numbers tweaking using already existing code and interfaces, perhaps a minigame THAT ISN'T THE EXPLORATION MINI-GAME, but rather something simple like a pop-up window where the capsuleer needs to use his arrow keys to literally keep a thing on a thing, while random factors make the thing not want to be on the thing or whatever (SOMETHING THAT IS EASY TO ADD TO ALREADY EXISTING CODE), and call it a manual calibration or override or whatever the hell. Point is, make the Entosis module be the thing that you click to INTERFACE with something that is completely immersive or just partially, but TOTALLY actively involved so that the capsuleer has to choose whether to hit the objective or pilot his ship, but it is impossible to do both well. Do this by whatever means is the easiest to implement since the desire is to keep it simple, and then possibly expand to more awesome things later (like the Valkyrie or Dust type ideas). Harry Saq for CSM X
Alavaria Fera GoonWaffe 6603	Posted - 2015.03.10 20:58:32 - [1428] - Quote Rowells wrote: Alavaria Fera wrote: Actually, only like nadot renters *use bubbles now. Everyone else doesn't because roaming gangs most prefer to simply ignore bubbles, with... guess what??? Yeah, interceptor gangs. * Only if there are renters there, most of nadot sov is not rented out simply because there's so much. So it's just empty except for I guess moons being mined. I would argue that interceptors were chosen as popularity because of bubbles. People might be willing to use other things more often if clusterbubbles weren't a thing. Not advocating anything there, just observing Well at least in dek it's less of clusterbubbles but Sabres waiting to catch you... But if you can just ignore the sabre because the bubble does nothing, it's a nice bonus to a a ship that moves very fast ^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears. Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
Amyclas Amatin SUNDERING Goonswarm Federation 661	Posted - 2015.03.10 21:02:03 - [1429] - Quote afkalt wrote: Amyclas Amatin wrote: afkalt wrote: Speaking of, I'm still curious as to the problem. I could fail fit a battlecruiser that aligns so fast it couldnt even be caught by an inty entering the system and troll you with that and still breaks 6.3km/s to break grids. Were I so clinically dumb. So really...when we get down to it...it's the bubbles. People hate that the can't hide behind walls of bubbles. I get that but what is the eve mantra...ah yes...HTFU. Or maybe people just have a fundamental hate for the module and are masking it behind the inty smokescreen. I don't know, I just know I can smell the bullshit wafting from this thread on Saturn. Going by that logic, bubbles shouldn't exist. Honor brawls with module points only right? HTFU and all... Or maybe I have higher expectations of what defending things ought to be. So at least we've bottomed it out now. The "problem"...sorry - witch you're trying hunt - is nullification. The same thing regularly cried about, because it makes inattentive bears sad pandas. How exactly would you, defend sov and deal with every other ceptor that comes to entosis your stuff? 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?"
Zazad Antollare Enlightened Industries Goonswarm Federation 3	Posted - 2015.03.10 21:04:15 - [1430] - Quote im wondering if fozzie liked any idea in this thread or it just a waste of words

Alavaria Fera GoonWaffe 6603	Posted - 2015.03.10 21:05:34 - [1431] - Quote Amyclas Amatin wrote: afkalt wrote: Amyclas Amatin wrote: afkalt wrote: Speaking of, I'm still curious as to the problem. I could fail fit a battlecruiser that aligns so fast it couldnt even be caught by an inty entering the system and troll you with that and still breaks 6.3km/s to break grids. Were I so clinically dumb. So really...when we get down to it...it's the bubbles. People hate that the can't hide behind walls of bubbles. I get that but what is the eve mantra...ah yes...HTFU. Or maybe people just have a fundamental hate for the module and are masking it behind the inty smokescreen. I don't know, I just know I can smell the bullshit wafting from this thread on Saturn. Going by that logic, bubbles shouldn't exist. Honor brawls with module points only right? HTFU and all... Or maybe I have higher expectations of what defending things ought to be. So at least we've bottomed it out now. The "problem"...sorry - witch you're trying hunt - is nullification. The same thing regularly cried about, because it makes inattentive bears sad pandas. How exactly would you, defend sov and deal with every other ceptor that comes to entosis your stuff? I think the intention is that you can't. This will shake up sov, unlike well... fatigue ^^ 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 6603	Posted - 2015.03.10 21:07:02 - [1432] - Quote Zazad Antollare wrote: im wondering if fozzie liked any idea in this thread or it just a waste of words Hmm Actually, I'm wondering if fozzie even read any idea in this thead This is what I think will happen: "hey, thanks for the feedback, here's our new and improved entosis link" it's the same one they had earlier, which they didn't share the details of "ok, since everyone should like it, we're good to go for release and then people who make interceptors became uberrich and quit eve ^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears. Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
Amyclas Amatin SUNDERING Goonswarm Federation 661	Posted - 2015.03.10 21:11:55 - [1433] - Quote What the political meta needs to counter this change in mechanics... is a real blue donut to keep the smaller groups out. 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?"
Alavaria Fera GoonWaffe 6603	Posted - 2015.03.10 21:13:01 - [1434] - Quote Amyclas Amatin wrote: What the political meta needs to counter this change in mechanics... is a real blue donut to keep the smaller groups out. Why do you think the dev blog is called "politics by other means" CCP intends to use these mechanics (other means) to enforce a change in politics. ^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears. Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
Amyclas Amatin SUNDERING Goonswarm Federation 661	Posted - 2015.03.10 21:14:01 - [1435] - Quote Alavaria Fera wrote: Amyclas Amatin wrote: What the political meta needs to counter this change in mechanics... is a real blue donut to keep the smaller groups out. Why do you think the dev blog is called "politics by other means" CCP intends to use these mechanics (other means) to enforce a change in politics. One up CCP - now the coalitions can't be bothered to fight each other. Mordus Angels equivalents are keeping us busy playing whack-a-mole in space. 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?"
ISD Ezwal ISD Community Communications Liaisons 4020	Posted - 2015.03.10 21:14:37 - [1436] - Quote Carniflex wrote: They don't show netflix legally outside of US :/ Yes, they do. Alavaria Fera wrote: Though the poor chaps that have to clean the thread... shrug Thank you for your consideration. GeeShizzle MacCloud wrote: 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 all their work clearing out all the dreck from these threads. Untill next week then! I'm looking forward to those beers... That said, I have removed some rule breaking posts and those quoting them. As always I let some edge cases stay. Please people, keep it on topic and above all civil! The Rules: 4. Personal attacks are prohibited. Commonly known as flaming, personal attacks are posts that are designed to personally berate or insult another forum user. Posts of this nature are not beneficial to the community spirit that CCP promote and as such they will not be tolerated. 5. Trolling is prohibited. Trolling is a defined as a post that is deliberately designed for the purpose of angering and insulting other players in an attempt to incite retaliation or an emotional response. Posts of this nature are disruptive, often abusive and do not contribute to the sense of community that CCP promote. 27. Off-topic posting is prohibited. Off-topic posting is permitted within reason, as sometimes a single comment may color or lighten the tone of discussion. However, excessive posting of off-topic remarks in an attempt to derail a thread may result in the thread being locked, or a forum warning being issued to the off-topic poster. 32. Rumor mongering is prohibited. Rumor threads and posts which are based off no actual solid information and are designed to either troll or annoy other users will be locked and removed. These kinds of threads and posts are detrimental to the well being and spirit of the EVE Online Community, and can create undue panic among forum users, as well as adding to the workload of our moderators. Thread reopened. ISD Ezwal Vice Admiral Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs) Interstellar Services Department
Borachon GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 36	Posted - 2015.03.10 22:45:39 - [1437] - Quote As many have said, the main concern with being able to fit a long-range T2 link as currently envisioned on an interceptor is that the attacker risks very little while the defender risks a lot. Let's try and make this concrete. Let's examine your hypothetical small nullsec alliance, since that's what we want more of. Someone (who ever could that be?) decides to troll it with interceptors to create timers that they can later send their members to contest for "content". Some basic assumptions: The attacker focuses on pinging ihubs, since they're expensive and they have warning from dscan when people get close. Each ihub has a pirate detection array 3 and an ore detection array 3 in it, since you want a good military and industrial index to protect your sov and have time to respond to pings. The ihub and mods cost 650m (400m+150m+100m) ISK. It costs you 250m isk for each of the two jump freighter trips to transport the upgrades out (250m isk is how much a Black Frog JF run from Jita to X-70 costs), and 350m isk (speculating) for the freighter trip for the ihub itself. So, 1.5b isk in total for your ihub. Each failed attempt to ping a structure costs the attackers some amount due to the risk of losing his ship. At the high end of risk, Carniflex has speculated this could be up to 25m (100m/4) isk on average; I'd guess it's closer to 5m isk on average because dscan exists and sometimes it's just a Celestis or Maulus using ECM on you. We'll stick with Carniflex's 25m ISK number for now, however. Your small alliance responds well to sov pings, but some you're going to miss. This could be because they're at the end of your primetime, or there are too many at once for you to cover, or you're out with friends, or whatever. Let's say 95% of the time (19/20) you respond to a sov ping and either chase off or kill the attacker. An ihub timer is very dangerous because of how expensive ihubs are; large groups will show up if they happen, so you expect to win about half of them and lose about half of them. In 19 out of 20 pings, you respond and the attacker has a chance of losing his interceptor, costing him 25m19=475m every 20 pings. One out of every 20 pings you fail to respond and have a 50% chance of losing your 1.5b ISK ihub, costing you 750m ISK on average. Even using numbers that I think are unrealistic in terms of risk to the attacker, it is easily worth an attacker's time. To break even using Carniflex's numbers, you'd have to respond to almost 97% of all ihub pings. If the average cost of an ihub ping in an interceptor is closer to 10m, you'd have to respond to almost 99% of all ihub pings. If it's closer to 5m, you can miss only 1 sov ping out of 150. This is the basic problem - the combination of expensive sov structures and entosis link fits that results in low risk per ping. If something like that goes live, even accepting MOA's (imo wrong) numbers*, trollceptors would be toxic to sov nullsec. Ihubs would die and go (rationally) unreplaced, and most of the things which make sov nullsec actually livable (ratting, mining, exploring, etc.) would end. And with it, all the targets in sov 0.0 for alliances like MOA would go away, too. There are lots of ways to fix this (make ihubs/upgrades smaller and cheaper, S/M/L links, nerfing base interceptor agility, link penalties to sig bloom or agility or max speed, etc.), and I have my perferences (which I stated early on). It's imperative, however, that we at least recognize the problem and work to find the best changes to entosis links fits to avoid it.
GeeShizzle MacCloud 539	Posted - 2015.03.10 22:47:30 - [1438] - 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
Erasmus Grant EVE University Ivy League 21	Posted - 2015.03.10 23:00:36 - [1439] - Quote What is really unfair is how these Sov powers can control the best moons far from their sov systems.
Erasmus Grant EVE University Ivy League 21	Posted - 2015.03.10 23:04:44 - [1440] - Quote 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?

Primary This Rifter 4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation 725	Posted - 2015.03.10 23:21:08 - [1441] - Quote Zazad Antollare wrote: 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). I feel like this is the best solution. Reminder: CCP thinks you have no right to your alliance logos.
Miner Hottie Valar Morghulis. Goonswarm Federation 78	Posted - 2015.03.10 23:21:08 - [1442] - Quote MASSADEATH wrote: Corey Lean wrote: MASSADEATH wrote: The whole point is to end the sprawling wasteland of empty SOV space.... and this should do it. If a 30,000 man alliance cant have a few people with entosis ships on the standby to stop SOV attacks on thier structures then they dont deserve that space No the point is about fights. Mr. Fozzie the the design goals and end-state of all these changes is to generate fights by controlling the grid through force of arms, not slippery petes or interceptors. So that should exclude the usual suspects from this conversation about sovereignty. so come out and fight...it will be YOUR choice to defend YOUR space or not..... maybe you will have to PvP instead of ratting 24/7? or perhaps you will be forced into 1-5 systems instead of who knows how many you guys "own" And i use the word "own" loosely as they are empty anyway. Forget the past...this is the new future....and it seems to be burning BRIGHT :) What CCP needs to do..is tie POS/moon goo to SOV as well.... so it breaks your ISK control over the game :) That is goddam rich coming from you lot, hugging the undock in 5zz and refusing to fight us in your prime time. It's all about how hot my mining lasers get.
GeeShizzle MacCloud 540	Posted - 2015.03.10 23:27:17 - [1443] - 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?
Primary This Rifter 4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation 725	Posted - 2015.03.10 23:37:52 - [1444] - Quote Mike Azariah wrote: It is hard to imagine this being playtested on Sisi because so much of it WILL be psyops. So we can theroycraft and posture all you want . . . it will be tested when the rubber hits the road. Aren't you just the most useless CSM then? Is this what you've been saying in your official capacity as well? "Gee man, we just don't knowwwwwwww. Forget about trying to predict scenarios where this balance change might fail, just keep throwing **** at the problem and see what sticks instead of getting it right the first time, or as close to it as we can get." Reminder: CCP thinks you have no right to your alliance logos.
Alavaria Fera GoonWaffe 6603	Posted - 2015.03.10 23:41:39 - [1445] - Quote Miner Hottie wrote: MASSADEATH wrote: Corey Lean wrote: MASSADEATH wrote: The whole point is to end the sprawling wasteland of empty SOV space.... and this should do it. If a 30,000 man alliance cant have a few people with entosis ships on the standby to stop SOV attacks on thier structures then they dont deserve that space No the point is about fights. Mr. Fozzie the the design goals and end-state of all these changes is to generate fights by controlling the grid through force of arms, not slippery petes or interceptors. So that should exclude the usual suspects from this conversation about sovereignty. so come out and fight...it will be YOUR choice to defend YOUR space or not..... maybe you will have to PvP instead of ratting 24/7? or perhaps you will be forced into 1-5 systems instead of who knows how many you guys "own" And i use the word "own" loosely as they are empty anyway. Forget the past...this is the new future....and it seems to be burning BRIGHT :) What CCP needs to do..is tie POS/moon goo to SOV as well.... so it breaks your ISK control over the game :) That is goddam rich coming from you lot, hugging the undock in 5zz and refusing to fight us in your prime time. But they don't have a prime time because no sov so Besides that's the mordus NPCs sov... so... ^^ 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 6603	Posted - 2015.03.10 23:44:21 - [1446] - Quote Primary This Rifter wrote: Mike Azariah wrote: It is hard to imagine this being playtested on Sisi because so much of it WILL be psyops. So we can theroycraft and posture all you want . . . it will be tested when the rubber hits the road. Aren't you just the most useless CSM then? Is this what you've been saying in your official capacity as well? "Gee man, we just don't knowwwwwwww. Forget about trying to predict scenarios where this balance change might fail, just keep throwing **** at the problem and see what sticks instead of getting it right the first time, or as close to it as we can get." It's what CCP likes to do, so it seems they're of the same mind... So basically this discussion is pointless. But we knew that, this was just a call to post ^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears. Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
afkalt Republic Military School Minmatar Republic 924	Posted - 2015.03.10 23:46:15 - [1447] - Quote Borachon wrote: 50% chance of losing your 1.5b ISK ihub That's a very off assumption - in moderately upgraded system, the deck is stacked hard in the defenders favor. >>If the Sovereignty structure exiting its reinforcement period has an owner, then occupancy defense bonuses apply to all of the Command Nodes for that structureGÇÖs event In other words, defenders always cap in 10 minutes, attackers in 10-40. Multiply that by the 10 nodes required and even a 5 minute difference starts adding up fast. Unless you blob them - but blobbing to take sov is hardly new and has no bearing on these debates.
Alavaria Fera GoonWaffe 6603	Posted - 2015.03.10 23:52:08 - [1448] - Quote Stacking more and more required entosis time. Ah, this new version of structure ~~shooting~~ lasering sounds great. ^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears. Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
Syn Shi School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State 134	Posted - 2015.03.10 23:53:49 - [1449] - Quote Amyclas Amatin wrote: Wishful thinking. If Entosis links flip/destroy structures, they will be the center of our doctrines. We play to win. Quote: 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. Put it this way. If sending 500 suicide alts to Entosis something is a viable strategy, we will do it. Everyone already knows that goons answer to anything is just blob the hell out of it. Its the only way they can win. Grr goons.........F1 4evah.
Borachon GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 36	Posted - 2015.03.10 23:55:39 - [1450] - Quote afkalt wrote: Unless you blob them - but blobbing to take sov... has no bearing on these debates. My point is that big groups will show up exactly because ihubs are expensive, valuable, and hard to replace. We've all seen how PL has farmed BRAVE, we know how many supers NC. has to throw around, and we all know wxactly who Fozzie is referring to when he talks about "weaponinzing boredom". Even assuming you're right though, if you contested 95% of ihub pings: If it costs the attacker 25m per ihub ping (riiiight...), you'd have to win 75% of ihub reinforces to break even If it costs the attacker 10m per ihub ping, you'd have to win almost 90% of ihub reinforces to break even If it costs the attacker 5m per ihub ping, you'd have to win 94% of ihub reinforces to break even That's a pretty heavy burden.

Nolak Ataru KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 768	Posted - 2015.03.11 00:00:53 - [1451] - Quote Primary This Rifter wrote: Mike Azariah wrote: It is hard to imagine this being playtested on Sisi because so much of it WILL be psyops. So we can theroycraft and posture all you want . . . it will be tested when the rubber hits the road. Aren't you just the most useless CSM then? Is this what you've been saying in your official capacity as well? "Gee man, we just don't knowwwwwwww. Forget about trying to predict scenarios where this balance change might fail, just keep throwing **** at the problem and see what sticks instead of getting it right the first time, or as close to it as we can get." Ironically, he said the same thing about ISBoxing and possibly fighters.
Kaarous Aldurald Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE. 12103	Posted - 2015.03.11 00:18:26 - [1452] - Quote Primary This Rifter wrote: Mike Azariah wrote: It is hard to imagine this being playtested on Sisi because so much of it WILL be psyops. So we can theroycraft and posture all you want . . . it will be tested when the rubber hits the road. Aren't you just the most useless CSM then? Is this what you've been saying in your official capacity as well? "Gee man, we just don't knowwwwwwww. Forget about trying to predict scenarios where this balance change might fail, just keep throwing **** at the problem and see what sticks instead of getting it right the first time, or as close to it as we can get." The really fun part is that it's on purpose. He's not stupid, he's trying to push his agenda. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs.
Alavaria Fera GoonWaffe 6605	Posted - 2015.03.11 00:20:01 - [1453] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Primary This Rifter wrote: Mike Azariah wrote: It is hard to imagine this being playtested on Sisi because so much of it WILL be psyops. So we can theroycraft and posture all you want . . . it will be tested when the rubber hits the road. Aren't you just the most useless CSM then? Is this what you've been saying in your official capacity as well? "Gee man, we just don't knowwwwwwww. Forget about trying to predict scenarios where this balance change might fail, just keep throwing **** at the problem and see what sticks instead of getting it right the first time, or as close to it as we can get." The really fun part is that it's on purpose. He's not stupid, he's trying to push his agenda. Ah, another person who wants to grasp hold of the -ultimate weapon- to end our 0.0 dream. I mean this sort of thing also happened with fatigue, but I'm sure this time... it will be different. ^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears. Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
Dras Malar Cloak and Daggers Fidelas Constans 8	Posted - 2015.03.11 00:22:27 - [1454] - Quote These calculations about isk expenditures on both sides are assuming that the attacker is trying to win the isk war and isn't just trying to annoy you to death. Even if it costs more in interceptors than your ihub is worth it could still be worth it to take your sov just to burn you out in the long war. Honestly I do not understand why we are even talking about the entosis link. It's very discouraging that CCP gets these wild ideas and it doesn't really matter what we say about them, we just have to deal with the fallout. I would love it if we could just scrap this idea about this gimmicky module and go back to coming up with a more streamlined sov system based on existing mechanics.
Borachon GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 36	Posted - 2015.03.11 00:26:52 - [1455] - Quote Dras Malar wrote: These calculations about isk expenditures on both sides are assuming that the attacker is trying to win the isk war and isn't just trying to annoy you to death. Even if it costs more in interceptors than your ihub is worth it could still be worth it to take your sov just to burn you out in the long war. In big sov wars, I absolutely agree, because morale and burnout are what counts in the long run. However, the basic economics of it are so bad, that you'd never even get to the long run unless you, for example, made ihubs and their upgrades a lot cheaper and easier to install.
Burl en Daire M.O.M.S. Corp 120	Posted - 2015.03.11 00:32:15 - [1456] - Quote Alavaria Fera wrote: Primary This Rifter wrote: Mike Azariah wrote: It is hard to imagine this being playtested on Sisi because so much of it WILL be psyops. So we can theroycraft and posture all you want . . . it will be tested when the rubber hits the road. Aren't you just the most useless CSM then? Is this what you've been saying in your official capacity as well? "Gee man, we just don't knowwwwwwww. Forget about trying to predict scenarios where this balance change might fail, just keep throwing **** at the problem and see what sticks instead of getting it right the first time, or as close to it as we can get." It's what CCP likes to do, so it seems they're of the same mind... So basically this discussion is pointless. But we knew that, this was just a call to post They try to predict what is going to happen but it is nearly impossible to predict what we are going to do with the changes. The discussion isn't pointless and if it is why are still posting? Kind of like sov null is worthless and pointless but yet you still live there. Just seems odd to me that so many people flock to pointless endeavors. Yesterday's weirdness is tomorrow's reason why. Hunter S. Thompson
Alavaria Fera GoonWaffe 6605	Posted - 2015.03.11 00:35:26 - [1457] - Quote Borachon wrote: Dras Malar wrote: These calculations about isk expenditures on both sides are assuming that the attacker is trying to win the isk war and isn't just trying to annoy you to death. Even if it costs more in interceptors than your ihub is worth it could still be worth it to take your sov just to burn you out in the long war. In big sov wars, I absolutely agree, because morale and burnout are what counts in the long run. However, the basic economics of it are so bad, that you'd never even get to the long run unless you, for example, made ihubs and their upgrades a lot cheaper and easier to install. Well basically the isk cost as well as the transport cost (but remember the 0.0 vision of freighter convoys) are both relevant. It's still likely that eventually you'd just see unihubbed areas, and then the ratting etc is so bad no one lives there, making it even less worthwhile to bother defending or ihubbing it. So thus, the farm burns down and the fields get overgrown with spaceweeds (not the type you smoke). ^^ 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 6605	Posted - 2015.03.11 00:37:46 - [1458] - Quote Burl en Daire wrote: Alavaria Fera wrote: Primary This Rifter wrote: Mike Azariah wrote: It is hard to imagine this being playtested on Sisi because so much of it WILL be psyops. So we can theroycraft and posture all you want . . . it will be tested when the rubber hits the road. Aren't you just the most useless CSM then? Is this what you've been saying in your official capacity as well? "Gee man, we just don't knowwwwwwww. Forget about trying to predict scenarios where this balance change might fail, just keep throwing **** at the problem and see what sticks instead of getting it right the first time, or as close to it as we can get." It's what CCP likes to do, so it seems they're of the same mind... So basically this discussion is pointless. But we knew that, this was just a call to post They try to predict what is going to happen but it is nearly impossible to predict what we are going to do with the changes. The discussion isn't pointless and if it is why are still posting? Kind of like sov null is worthless and pointless but yet you still live there. Just seems odd to me that so many people flock to pointless endeavors. It's important to for a particular reason. Let's say it's a bet of sorts. ^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears. Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
Yroc Jannseen Enlightened Industries Goonswarm Federation 71	Posted - 2015.03.11 00:40:14 - [1459] - Quote Burl en Daire wrote: Alavaria Fera wrote: Primary This Rifter wrote: Mike Azariah wrote: It is hard to imagine this being playtested on Sisi because so much of it WILL be psyops. So we can theroycraft and posture all you want . . . it will be tested when the rubber hits the road. Aren't you just the most useless CSM then? Is this what you've been saying in your official capacity as well? "Gee man, we just don't knowwwwwwww. Forget about trying to predict scenarios where this balance change might fail, just keep throwing **** at the problem and see what sticks instead of getting it right the first time, or as close to it as we can get." It's what CCP likes to do, so it seems they're of the same mind... So basically this discussion is pointless. But we knew that, this was just a call to post They try to predict what is going to happen but it is nearly impossible to predict what we are going to do with the changes. The discussion isn't pointless and if it is why are still posting? Kind of like sov null is worthless and pointless but yet you still live there. Just seems odd to me that so many people flock to pointless endeavors. I think most of the CFC have a pretty good idea what we are going to do with these changes.
Alavaria Fera GoonWaffe 6605	Posted - 2015.03.11 00:41:16 - [1460] - Quote Yeah, massadeath is to cause us to abandon our sov and we'll have to run to other places where we will soon perish is what we will be doing after these changes. ^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears. Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.

Amyclas Amatin SUNDERING Goonswarm Federation 662	Posted - 2015.03.11 00:42:22 - [1461] - Quote Alavaria Fera wrote: Borachon wrote: Dras Malar wrote: These calculations about isk expenditures on both sides are assuming that the attacker is trying to win the isk war and isn't just trying to annoy you to death. Even if it costs more in interceptors than your ihub is worth it could still be worth it to take your sov just to burn you out in the long war. In big sov wars, I absolutely agree, because morale and burnout are what counts in the long run. However, the basic economics of it are so bad, that you'd never even get to the long run unless you, for example, made ihubs and their upgrades a lot cheaper and easier to install. Well basically the isk cost as well as the transport cost (but remember the 0.0 vision of freighter convoys) are both relevant. It's still likely that eventually you'd just see unihubbed areas, and then the ratting etc is so bad no one lives there, making it even less worthwhile to bother defending or ihubbing it. So thus, the farm burns down and the fields get overgrown with spaceweeds (not the type you smoke). Who cares about your bliddy farm when we can PVE in safety in highsec while roaming you in ceptors. 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?"
Burl en Daire M.O.M.S. Corp 120	Posted - 2015.03.11 00:42:46 - [1462] - Quote Yroc Jannseen wrote: Burl en Daire wrote: Alavaria Fera wrote: Primary This Rifter wrote: Mike Azariah wrote: It is hard to imagine this being playtested on Sisi because so much of it WILL be psyops. So we can theroycraft and posture all you want . . . it will be tested when the rubber hits the road. Aren't you just the most useless CSM then? Is this what you've been saying in your official capacity as well? "Gee man, we just don't knowwwwwwww. Forget about trying to predict scenarios where this balance change might fail, just keep throwing **** at the problem and see what sticks instead of getting it right the first time, or as close to it as we can get." It's what CCP likes to do, so it seems they're of the same mind... So basically this discussion is pointless. But we knew that, this was just a call to post They try to predict what is going to happen but it is nearly impossible to predict what we are going to do with the changes. The discussion isn't pointless and if it is why are still posting? Kind of like sov null is worthless and pointless but yet you still live there. Just seems odd to me that so many people flock to pointless endeavors. I think most of the CFC have a pretty good idea what we are going to do with these changes. I look forward to watching things burn for a while but we shouldn't forget that some doors swing both ways. Yesterday's weirdness is tomorrow's reason why. Hunter S. Thompson
Alavaria Fera GoonWaffe 6605	Posted - 2015.03.11 00:44:31 - [1463] - Quote Burl en Daire wrote: Yroc Jannseen wrote: I think most of the CFC have a pretty good idea what we are going to do with these changes. I look forward to watching things burn for a while but we shouldn't forget that some doors swing both ways. Exactly. Massadeath is waiting for grasp the sov laser. It's throbbing green module activation light will end us. ^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears. Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
Burl en Daire M.O.M.S. Corp 120	Posted - 2015.03.11 00:48:03 - [1464] - Quote Alavaria Fera wrote: Burl en Daire wrote: Yroc Jannseen wrote: I think most of the CFC have a pretty good idea what we are going to do with these changes. I look forward to watching things burn for a while but we shouldn't forget that some doors swing both ways. Exactly. Massadeath is waiting for grasp the sov laser. It's throbbing green module activation light will end us. Yeah, by the end of the year GSF will just be a broken, smoldering hive of inactivity and bitter vets grasping to hold on to the few sov straws they have left. I am so looking forward to the conglomerate of small null corps and high sec dreamers that bring down the beast. Yesterday's weirdness is tomorrow's reason why. Hunter S. Thompson
Freddy Wong Garoun Investment Bank Gallente Federation 2	Posted - 2015.03.11 01:36:27 - [1465] - Quote Since it does seem that people will be bent on constantly warping from sov structure to sov structure (and anticipating the addition of new anchorable system structures), would allowing an iHub or a station to count as the TCU be unreasonable in FozzieSov? The thought here is once a TCU is down the system is claimed as per normal, but adding an iHub AND a station would remove the need for a TCU, with ownership of the system dependent on who own both the iHub AND the station. Different owners would mean the system was unclaimed. This would mean the most sov structures one would have to defend in a system would be 2. The point here is to make defending sov slightly easier and make upgraded systems easier to defend. I believe with slightly less things to defend small stake holders in 0.0 would be able to defend a bit easier and the larger alliances would still be spread thin, though the empires would be slightly larger. This may encourage every system to have a station, but they will be destructible soon anyway right?
SilentAsTheGrave Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective 105	Posted - 2015.03.11 01:57:45 - [1466] - Quote Erasmus Grant wrote: What is really unfair is how these Sov powers can control the best moons far from their sov systems. So on top of renting systems they also use their numbers and power to keep moons from the little guys. Shhhhh.... don't tell any.... Oh who am I kidding! Please share this with EVERYONE!
Alavaria Fera GoonWaffe 6610	Posted - 2015.03.11 02:08:28 - [1467] - Quote SilentAsTheGrave wrote: Erasmus Grant wrote: What is really unfair is how these Sov powers can control the best moons far from their sov systems. So on top of renting systems they also use their numbers and power to keep moons from the little guys. Shhhhh.... don't tell any.... Oh who am I kidding! Please share this with EVERYONE! But Brave is already fighting PL and ... are you taking their moons or just being farmed as "content" for them? ^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears. Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
FT Diomedes The Graduates Forged of Fire 863	Posted - 2015.03.11 03:17:42 - [1468] - 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. So, what you are saying is that unless you are the size of Goonswarm, no alliance should hold more than one system? Because one system is already three different grids to defend (TCU, IHub, Station). Assume instead of a few interceptors attacking you, you get attacked by a decent sized alliance. With all your eggs in one basket, you are pretty much screwed. So, how many people can one system support? About ten ratters, a couple of ice miners, and a couple of miners, assuming it is an awesome system. So tell me, how is this going to work? The Greatest Ship Ever. Credit to Shahfluffers.
Alavaria Fera GoonWaffe 6613	Posted - 2015.03.11 03:36:36 - [1469] - Quote FT Diomedes wrote: 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. So, what you are saying is that unless you are the size of Goonswarm, no alliance should hold more than one system? Because one system is already three different grids to defend (TCU, IHub, Station). Assume instead of a few interceptors attacking you, you get attacked by a decent sized alliance. With all your eggs in one basket, you are pretty much screwed. So, how many people can one system support? About ten ratters, a couple of ice miners, and a couple of miners, assuming it is an awesome system. So tell me, how is this going to work? You have the wrong 0.0 dream, I think. It's supposed to be endless capture-the-flag (or sov laser the structure) and you actually live elsewhere... ^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears. Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
Galphii Caldari Provisions Caldari State 302	Posted - 2015.03.11 03:53:49 - [1470] - Quote Seeing how this works on sisi sooner rather than later would be good. Then we can see if trollceptors will indeed be a problem well before it hits TQ. My primary concern is the 250km range for the t2 entrosis link. If you don't want evasive doctrines dominating, this should be reduced to something like 50km. It might be prudent to have the entosis link also disrupt propulsion mods too. "Wow, that internet argument completely changed my fundamental belief system," said no one, ever.

Mike Azariah The Scope Gallente Federation 2621	Posted - 2015.03.11 03:54:57 - [1471] - Quote Primary This Rifter wrote: Mike Azariah wrote: It is hard to imagine this being playtested on Sisi because so much of it WILL be psyops. So we can theorycraft and posture all you want . . . it will be tested when the rubber hits the road. Aren't you just the most useless CSM then? Is this what you've been saying in your official capacity as well? "Gee man, we just don't knowwwwwwww. Forget about trying to predict scenarios where this balance change might fail, just keep throwing ** at the problem and see what sticks instead of getting it right the first time, or as close to it as we can get." Most useless and** the most useful here, not a wide field of competition. How do you imagine 'testing' the sov structure on Sisi? Who would have a vested interest in trying it out? Defending it? As to what was said behind closed doors in my official capacity? There is a reason the doors are closed. Or do you mean to say you wish to compare my take to that which your OWN CSM reps have told you? What's that? They haven't told you squat? Well, I am suuuure they know what is best for you, just the same. I LIKE that it fits on an interceptor for exactly the same reasons you do not. That means there are demands of occupancy in depth, not just on choke points and border regions. That means that if you cannot find people to do said occupancy it will be trivial for you to lose that space. On the other hand I do not like the concept of people not bothering with territorial control hubs because they are too easily blown up. The math one person put up was well presented and worth looking at . . . in depth. But rather than using this as a reason to cut the interceptor fits I take it as a reason to increase reasons to have sov in local space and maybe push for a decrease in the cost of the TCUs. Volume and repetition only goes so far. I much prefer one good post to 50 bad ones. It is why I wade through this and other forums, I am panning for gold in a whole lot of mud/sand. m Mike Azariah Gö¼GöÇGöÇGö¼n++ ¯\|(pâä)/¯
Alavaria Fera GoonWaffe 6614	Posted - 2015.03.11 04:12:14 - [1472] - Quote Grats on a self-congratulatory troll post. It fits will in a thread about trolling sov ^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears. Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
Borachon GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 38	Posted - 2015.03.11 04:12:38 - [1473] - Quote Mike Azariah wrote: On the other hand I do not like the concept of people not bothering with territorial control hubs because they are too easily blown up. The math one person put up was well presented and worth looking at . . . in depth. But rather than using this as a reason to cut the interceptor fits I take it as a reason to increase reasons to have sov in local space and maybe push for a decrease in the cost of the TCUs. A minor correction - IHubs are the issue, not TCUs. TCUs are comparatively cheap and small (100m and fit in an industrial), and only a modest upgrade to most systems in Fozziesov. IHubs, on the other hand, are currently expensive, take freighters to install, jump freighters to install upgrades to level 3, and freighters to upgrade past that. More structures that size and cost to reinforce or disable as opposed to a single ihub holding billions in upgrades would relieve a lot of these issues. Actually, I just watched TMC's metashow from this past week, and Mittani and Progodlegend had a nice discussion of this at around the one hour mark.
Wanda Fayne Gurlz with Gunz 56	Posted - 2015.03.11 04:14:15 - [1474] - Quote SilentAsTheGrave wrote: Just reposting what seems to have gained some traction in case it was lost in the pages: In regards to the Entosis Link using fuel: I think this is a good idea. Using one Strontium every time you turn the module on would do a few good things. As Mike pointed out earlier along with the original people I'm sure; it would mean there is some form of logistics taking place to contest these systems. Especially when it comes to the outer lying systems. Smaller ships, such as interceptors hint hint, will have to be somewhat selective on what systems to contest and how many times they are willing to try to contest it. If they find themselves dealing with actual defenders active in the system and negating their Entosis Link with their own, they will have wasted time and will need to move on. Even if super zippy, untouchable (allegedly... ) ships do their thing, they can only do it so long before they run out of fuel. The defenders have the luxary of nearby stations and POS's that are common for alliances that own sov to resupply their Entosis Links. Overdrive Injectors, which is used to gain fast speed, have a penalty to cargo space. Food for thought. If players do not like the idea of having to resupply so often with small fast ships, they can use larger ships with bigger cargo bays. These larger ships tend to be much, much slower than tiny fast frigates. Getting the picture now? What the over all effect is it still means abandoned systems can still be captured just as easy as this new sov system wants, without having to subject itself to the mythical Trollceptors that terrorize the dreams of certain groups. What are your thoughts? I like the fuel idea, but it will die with the other good ideas... Now lets cut to the chase: As a revolutionary idea, lets put the meat on the table and require the entosis link to have a PLEX in the cargohold to activate. Does not consume it, just requires it to be in the ship for the link to work. 1. No trolling without substantial risk 2. Any ship in the game can carry one 3. Requires no additional modifications to the existing proposals. I dare anyone to defeat this idea, as it nails the trolling argument coffin closed.
Burl en Daire M.O.M.S. Corp 122	Posted - 2015.03.11 04:30:52 - [1475] - Quote Borachon wrote: Mike Azariah wrote: On the other hand I do not like the concept of people not bothering with territorial control hubs because they are too easily blown up. The math one person put up was well presented and worth looking at . . . in depth. But rather than using this as a reason to cut the interceptor fits I take it as a reason to increase reasons to have sov in local space and maybe push for a decrease in the cost of the TCUs. A minor correction - IHubs are the issue, not TCUs. TCUs are comparatively cheap and small (100m and fit in an industrial), and only a modest upgrade to most systems in Fozziesov. IHubs, on the other hand, are currently expensive, take freighters to install, jump freighters to install upgrades to level 3, and freighters to upgrade past that. More structures that size and cost to reinforce or disable as opposed to a single ihub holding billions in upgrades would relieve a lot of these issues. Actually, I just watched TMC's metashow from this past week, and Mittani and Progodlegend had a nice discussion of this at around the one hour mark. I haven't been able to watch it yet, I'm glad you posted that because I am very interested in hearing some different feedback from one of the people that "runs the game". I'll try to watch it now, thanks. What do you think the optimal number of IHubs would be for a system and/or what would you base that number off of? What would be an appropriate size (m3) and cost? Yesterday's weirdness is tomorrow's reason why. Hunter S. Thompson
Burl en Daire M.O.M.S. Corp 122	Posted - 2015.03.11 04:38:09 - [1476] - Quote Wanda Fayne wrote: SilentAsTheGrave wrote: Just reposting what seems to have gained some traction in case it was lost in the pages: In regards to the Entosis Link using fuel: I think this is a good idea. Using one Strontium every time you turn the module on would do a few good things. As Mike pointed out earlier along with the original people I'm sure; it would mean there is some form of logistics taking place to contest these systems. Especially when it comes to the outer lying systems. Smaller ships, such as interceptors hint hint, will have to be somewhat selective on what systems to contest and how many times they are willing to try to contest it. If they find themselves dealing with actual defenders active in the system and negating their Entosis Link with their own, they will have wasted time and will need to move on. Even if super zippy, untouchable (allegedly... ) ships do their thing, they can only do it so long before they run out of fuel. The defenders have the luxary of nearby stations and POS's that are common for alliances that own sov to resupply their Entosis Links. Overdrive Injectors, which is used to gain fast speed, have a penalty to cargo space. Food for thought. If players do not like the idea of having to resupply so often with small fast ships, they can use larger ships with bigger cargo bays. These larger ships tend to be much, much slower than tiny fast frigates. Getting the picture now? What the over all effect is it still means abandoned systems can still be captured just as easy as this new sov system wants, without having to subject itself to the mythical Trollceptors that terrorize the dreams of certain groups. What are your thoughts? I like the fuel idea, but it will die with the other good ideas... Now lets cut to the chase: As a revolutionary idea, lets put the meat on the table and require the entosis link to have a PLEX in the cargohold to activate. Does not consume it, just requires it to be in the ship for the link to work. 1. No trolling without substantial risk 2. Any ship in the game can carry one 3. Requires no additional modifications to the existing proposals. I dare anyone to defeat this idea, as it nails the trolling argument coffin closed. I love the idea but the cost barrier is a bit steep. If I was in a smaller gang and wanted to provoke a fight in null using an Elink it would take 700m just to do it, not counting hulls, fits or implants. I would vote it in but I think the entry barrier is too high for this particular mechanic. Also, it would allow only the super rich to troll any group at any time because as many have said, interceptors can't be caught. Take the recent minilove theft, 250B gone and it's no big deal, that is like 350 PLEX that could go to trolling and not many other organizations could do that. Yesterday's weirdness is tomorrow's reason why. Hunter S. Thompson
Wanda Fayne Gurlz with Gunz 56	Posted - 2015.03.11 04:48:00 - [1477] - Quote Burl en Daire wrote: Wanda Fayne wrote: I like the fuel idea, but it will die with the other good ideas... Now lets cut to the chase: As a revolutionary idea, lets put the meat on the table and require the entosis link to have a PLEX in the cargohold to activate. Does not consume it, just requires it to be in the ship for the link to work. 1. No trolling without substantial risk 2. Any ship in the game can carry one 3. Requires no additional modifications to the existing proposals. I dare anyone to defeat this idea, as it nails the trolling argument coffin closed. I love the idea but the cost barrier is a bit steep. If I was in a smaller gang and wanted to provoke a fight in null using an Elink it would take 700m just to do it, not counting hulls, fits or implants. I would vote it in but I think the entry barrier is too high for this particular mechanic. Also, it would allow only the super rich to troll any group at any time because as many have said, interceptors can't be caught. Take the recent minilove theft, 250B gone and it's no big deal, that is like 350 PLEX that could go to trolling and not many other organizations could do that. True, but the defender will also be sporting one, now isn't that raising your interest already? Edit: Are you there to provoke a fight, or seriously contend for sov?
Alavaria Fera GoonWaffe 6614	Posted - 2015.03.11 04:53:18 - [1478] - Quote Wanda Fayne wrote: Burl en Daire wrote: Wanda Fayne wrote: I like the fuel idea, but it will die with the other good ideas... Now lets cut to the chase: As a revolutionary idea, lets put the meat on the table and require the entosis link to have a PLEX in the cargohold to activate. Does not consume it, just requires it to be in the ship for the link to work. 1. No trolling without substantial risk 2. Any ship in the game can carry one 3. Requires no additional modifications to the existing proposals. I dare anyone to defeat this idea, as it nails the trolling argument coffin closed. I love the idea but the cost barrier is a bit steep. If I was in a smaller gang and wanted to provoke a fight in null using an Elink it would take 700m just to do it, not counting hulls, fits or implants. I would vote it in but I think the entry barrier is too high for this particular mechanic. Also, it would allow only the super rich to troll any group at any time because as many have said, interceptors can't be caught. Take the recent minilove theft, 250B gone and it's no big deal, that is like 350 PLEX that could go to trolling and not many other organizations could do that. True, but the defender will also be sporting one, now isn't that raising your interest already? Edit: Are you there to provoke a fight, or seriously contend for sov? If you're going to die, just quickly use the plex and get 30 days more subscription time to troll sov... ^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears. Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
Borachon GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 38	Posted - 2015.03.11 04:54:49 - [1479] - Quote Burl en Daire wrote: What do you think the optimal number of IHubs would be for a system and/or what would you base that number off of? What would be an appropriate size (m3) and cost? Good question, and I'm not sure about the answer. It also starts to get away from the specifics of the entosis link fits, so I'm not sure it's strictly on-topic for this thread. To be brief, though: PGL's suggestion was for an ihub and each upgrade to fit in an industrial, be buildable locally (they're currently sourced from NPCs in CONCORD stations), and have them each cost a few tens of millions of isk. That's the right area, though I might make them slightly more expensive so that they keep getting targetted, perhaps 150-200m isk total for a modestly upgraded (L3) ihub. At that level, the attacker and defender's risks are more commensurate, it's easy enough for an alliance moving to nullsec to get reasonable economic benefits quickly, but if it's occasionally killed it's not catastrophic. To keep this on topic, with reasonably upgraded ihubs in the 150m isk range, the purely economic annoyance of long range entosis links on interceptors doesn't bother me as much. The morale and general harassment costs do matter, and are easy for people not used to sov warfare to underestimate, but are also harder to quantify. That's why I'd still prefer S/M/L/XL size entosis modules with ranges and fitting costs in line with appropriately-sized high-slot weapons (say s/m/l/xl beam lasers).
Wanda Fayne Gurlz with Gunz 56	Posted - 2015.03.11 05:03:22 - [1480] - Quote Alavaria Fera wrote: Wanda Fayne wrote: Burl en Daire wrote: Wanda Fayne wrote: I like the fuel idea, but it will die with the other good ideas... Now lets cut to the chase: As a revolutionary idea, lets put the meat on the table and require the entosis link to have a PLEX in the cargohold to activate. Does not consume it, just requires it to be in the ship for the link to work. 1. No trolling without substantial risk 2. Any ship in the game can carry one 3. Requires no additional modifications to the existing proposals. I dare anyone to defeat this idea, as it nails the trolling argument coffin closed. I love the idea but the cost barrier is a bit steep. If I was in a smaller gang and wanted to provoke a fight in null using an Elink it would take 700m just to do it, not counting hulls, fits or implants. I would vote it in but I think the entry barrier is too high for this particular mechanic. Also, it would allow only the super rich to troll any group at any time because as many have said, interceptors can't be caught. Take the recent minilove theft, 250B gone and it's no big deal, that is like 350 PLEX that could go to trolling and not many other organizations could do that. True, but the defender will also be sporting one, now isn't that raising your interest already? Edit: Are you there to provoke a fight, or seriously contend for sov? If you're going to die, just quickly use the plex and get 30 days more subscription time to troll sov... And put another plex in your next ship, don't forget. Can't troll without that...

Carniflex StarHunt Mordus Angels 334	Posted - 2015.03.11 05:06:39 - [1481] - Quote ISD Ezwal wrote: Carniflex wrote: They don't show netflix legally outside of US :/ Yes, they do. Good to know. I was not aware that they provide service only to a part of EU not the full set. I happen to be in the part where they do not offer the service. Here, sanity... niiiice sanity, come to daddy... okay, that's a good sanity... THWONK! GOT the bastard.
Mike Azariah The Scope Gallente Federation 2622	Posted - 2015.03.11 05:06:41 - [1482] - Quote Borachon wrote: Mike Azariah wrote: On the other hand I do not like the concept of people not bothering with territorial control hubs because they are too easily blown up. The math one person put up was well presented and worth looking at . . . in depth. But rather than using this as a reason to cut the interceptor fits I take it as a reason to increase reasons to have sov in local space and maybe push for a decrease in the cost of the TCUs. A minor correction - IHubs are the issue, not TCUs. TCUs are comparatively cheap and small (100m and fit in an industrial), and only a modest upgrade to most systems in Fozziesov. IHubs, on the other hand, are currently expensive, take freighters to install, jump freighters to install upgrades to level 3, and freighters to upgrade past that. More structures that size and cost to reinforce or disable as opposed to a single ihub holding billions in upgrades would relieve a lot of these issues. Actually, I just watched TMC's metashow from this past week, and Mittani and Progodlegend had a nice discussion of this at around the one hour mark. I stand corrected, thank you. m Mike Azariah Gö¼GöÇGöÇGö¼n++ ¯\|(pâä)/¯
Veskrashen Justified Chaos Spaceship Bebop 791	Posted - 2015.03.11 05:27:03 - [1483] - Quote So, having read the multitude of responses, I've got some thoughts to put down to e-paper: 1. It's critical that this is a module, rather than a deployable. Reship times MATTER when your sov is determined by timer-based mechanics. Even if someone can only poop out one deployable / drone at a time, they can immediately poop out another once the first is destroyed. Killing a ship holding a sovlaser, on the other hand, forces that pilot to head back and get another ship with a sovlaser. In addition, it forces him to do so in a pod - giving the defenders ample time to send him all the way back to wherever his clone is located. Killing a Trollceptor then will remove that threat for a far longer time than killing a deployable pooped out by a Trollceptor. 2. The problem that Gewns et al have with Trollceptors is that they can avoid bubblecamps with instalockers. This is, in fact, by design - the entire idea of Interceptors is to create a class of high speed ships that can go ANYWHERE with ease. Giving them the ability to mount a Sovlaser just means those ships can have an impact on sov - which is a very, very good thing and a necessary thing from a design standpoint. Removing their ability to mount / use a sovlaser means that nullblocs can simply hellbubblecamp the chokepoints and remove all threats to their sov aside from wormholers (who are generally insane and uninterested in sov per se). 3. The 250km range of the T2 module is by design, intended to ensure that the common long range gunboat platforms cannot instagib someone using this module. The intent is to force the defender to either a) bring his own sovlaser and force a fight on his terms or b) force the defender to actually pin down and kill the attacker. The effective grid may be a lot bigger than in FW, but the principle is the same - no progress gets made until the baddies are dead. 4. "It's too hard and boring!!!!" Well, Gewns have repeatedly said that they will happily do boring crap for as long as needed, so they're not at all threatened by Trollceptors and the like. One might also point out that if there's noone attacking a structure, there's no need to defend that structure - meaning you only have to react to actual threats, and you get a notification system for that. 5. Timezones are a necessary part of this mechanic, as otherwise you'd be hard pressed to hold more than a handful of systems with a thousand-man alliance. Someone snarked about "FW is defending one system, we're talking about hundreds" and to some degree he's right. The natural limits to FW zones of control are based on incremental gains with no notification system; if it was instant RF with notification 23/7 it would be nearly impossible to hold any significant territory with the numbers of active PvPers we have. 6. To those who think this won't incentivize PvP, you're wrong. It absolutely will, by design - you have to force off or kill an attacker to save your structure. If you think that's boring then go recruit folks who enjoy solo PvP in high speed small ships. I hear Crosi Wesdo is for hire, at reasonable rates even. 7. Speaking of, if a bunch of nullbears offered a 40m isk bounty for any hostile ship destroyed that had an Entosis Link fitted in their sov space during their "Thunderdome TZ" I'd be willing to bet that they wouldn't have any problems getting folks to hunt sov trolls. Of course, if your idea of "PvP' is playing DOTA until a ping goes out and you then sit on a Titan until you gank some poor Ibis with 30+ supercarriers, you may not have the right mindset for Fozziesov. 8. Keep in mind that the fitting / cap use requirements for the T1 and T2 versions of the Entosis link don't have to have any relationship to each other. You can easily make the T2 version so much more cap hungry that it's nearly impossible for frigates / interceptors / etc to run one and a MWD at the same time - at least without absolutely gimping their fit. No need to restrict it to specific hull sizes or force it into web range via artificial range restrictions. This also to some degree addresses the fuel cost proprosal - IMO it's just another way of saying that instawarping nullified Trollceptors shouldn't be able to contest sov. 9. If one of the design goals is to ensure that all fleet doctrines are viable with this new Entosis Link mechanic, then there absolutely needs to be a version with 250km or so effective range. Otherwise max range kiting sniper doctrines wouldn' t be able to contest sov, which breaks the design goal. Artificially limiting the max range to 50km or so basically means that anything not a brawling doctrine is not viable to contest sov. Which, of course, get bombed into obliviion. 10. Similarly, the idea of "Entosis Shock" which makes a ship immobile if their lock / cycle is broken, or other ideas which render the using vessel immobile or at a severe speed penalty, are equally in violation of the principle to not impact fleet doctrine - as it invalidates any ship class or fleet doctrine that relies on speed to survive. I look forward to the trollposts of nullbears unable to adapt. Cheers! We Gallente have a saying: "CCP created the Gallente Militia to train the Fighters..."
Amyclas Amatin SUNDERING Goonswarm Federation 664	Posted - 2015.03.11 05:36:12 - [1484] - Quote game mechanics vs GEWNS 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?"
Alavaria Fera GoonWaffe 6615	Posted - 2015.03.11 05:38:28 - [1485] - Quote Oh so it's about us again huh. Well it isn't that surprising, our 0.0 dream has to be ended after all ^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears. Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
Mike Azariah The Scope Gallente Federation 2623	Posted - 2015.03.11 05:40:43 - [1486] - Quote No, Game mechanics vs stagnation m Mike Azariah Gö¼GöÇGöÇGö¼n++ ¯\|(pâä)/¯
Nolak Ataru KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 768	Posted - 2015.03.11 05:50:53 - [1487] - Quote Mike Azariah wrote: No, Game mechanics vs stagnation Aaaaand he dodges my entire callout. GJ.
Alavaria Fera GoonWaffe 6615	Posted - 2015.03.11 05:57:22 - [1488] - Quote Nolak Ataru wrote: Mike Azariah wrote: No, Game mechanics vs stagnation Aaaaand he dodges my entire callout. GJ. Our 0.0 dream is stagnation. So it has to be ended. ^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears. Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
Wanda Fayne Gurlz with Gunz 56	Posted - 2015.03.11 05:59:38 - [1489] - Quote Alavaria Fera wrote: Nolak Ataru wrote: Mike Azariah wrote: No, Game mechanics vs stagnation Aaaaand he dodges my entire callout. GJ. Our 0.0 dream is stagnation. So it has to be ended. Please, with all due respect. What explicitly is this "0.0 dream" you keep repeating? Thanks.
knobber Jobbler Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 528	Posted - 2015.03.11 06:38:07 - [1490] - Quote Mike Azariah wrote: No, Game mechanics vs stagnation m Time sheets replacing pap links. It's not viable long term.

Mike Azariah The Scope Gallente Federation 2623	Posted - 2015.03.11 06:40:22 - [1491] - Quote Nolak Ataru wrote: If you want to see the difference between "volume" and "repetition", look at the fighter thread. Hundreds of "grr fighters" badposting, and zero actually taking the time to even attempt to discuss why fighter assist is bad. I'm not even going to talk about the ISBoxer thread where nobody at all has given us a solid reason why ISBoxer should be banned, other than screaming "muh ISK" and "muh effort" when they are exposed to facts, logic, and reason, all the while sticking their heads in the sand and shouting "lalalala can't hear you" when their fallacies and insults are exposed. I did look at the Skynet thread, still do. I have said there that I am against afk play of any sort and so I am not grr fighters I am grr you do all the work with my tools. The CSM cannot force anything, you know that. If that means you believe us to be useless, well that is your call. I humbly disagree. But do you honestly believe that all the discussion here about trollceptors has advanced the thought process? I mean after the first ten pages. THAT is what I mean by repetition. Comments on recent ideas: No, I do not think it should be a deployable. I am still in favour of fuel. I agree that the long range of the T2 is to make the ship the limiting factor, not the module oh, and I am not here as part of some campaign effort. If I was I would have stopped when the polls closed I am here because this matters (to me and some of you) m Mike Azariah Gö¼GöÇGöÇGö¼n++ ¯\|(pâä)/¯
Burl en Daire M.O.M.S. Corp 123	Posted - 2015.03.11 06:50:35 - [1492] - Quote Wanda Fayne wrote: Burl en Daire wrote: Wanda Fayne wrote: I like the fuel idea, but it will die with the other good ideas... Now lets cut to the chase: As a revolutionary idea, lets put the meat on the table and require the entosis link to have a PLEX in the cargohold to activate. Does not consume it, just requires it to be in the ship for the link to work. 1. No trolling without substantial risk 2. Any ship in the game can carry one 3. Requires no additional modifications to the existing proposals. I dare anyone to defeat this idea, as it nails the trolling argument coffin closed. I love the idea but the cost barrier is a bit steep. If I was in a smaller gang and wanted to provoke a fight in null using an Elink it would take 700m just to do it, not counting hulls, fits or implants. I would vote it in but I think the entry barrier is too high for this particular mechanic. Also, it would allow only the super rich to troll any group at any time because as many have said, interceptors can't be caught. Take the recent minilove theft, 250B gone and it's no big deal, that is like 350 PLEX that could go to trolling and not many other organizations could do that. True, but the defender will also be sporting one, now isn't that raising your interest already? Edit: Are you there to provoke a fight, or seriously contend for sov? I am looking for the elusive GF by goading out people to protect their assets. WH, LS and some HS players may want to get a fight and this mechanic allows that, not all Elinks will be trolls or eviction notices, some will be people wanting quick fights so they can get some kills and go home. Yesterday's weirdness is tomorrow's reason why. Hunter S. Thompson
Burl en Daire M.O.M.S. Corp 123	Posted - 2015.03.11 06:56:58 - [1493] - Quote Borachon wrote: Burl en Daire wrote: What do you think the optimal number of IHubs would be for a system and/or what would you base that number off of? What would be an appropriate size (m3) and cost? Good question, and I'm not sure about the answer. It also starts to get away from the specifics of the entosis link fits, so I'm not sure it's strictly on-topic for this thread. To be brief, though: PGL's suggestion was for an ihub and each upgrade to fit in an industrial, be buildable locally (they're currently sourced from NPCs in CONCORD stations), and have them each cost a few tens of millions of isk. That's the right area, though I might make them slightly more expensive so that they keep getting targetted, perhaps 150-200m isk total for a modestly upgraded (L3) ihub. At that level, the attacker and defender's risks are more commensurate, it's easy enough for an alliance moving to nullsec to get reasonable economic benefits quickly, but if it's occasionally killed it's not catastrophic. To keep this on topic, with reasonably upgraded ihubs in the 150m isk range, the purely economic annoyance of long range entosis links on interceptors doesn't bother me as much. The morale and general harassment costs do matter, and are easy for people not used to sov warfare to underestimate, but are also harder to quantify. That's why I'd still prefer S/M/L/XL size entosis modules with ranges and fitting costs in line with appropriately-sized high-slot weapons (say s/m/l/xl beam lasers). I would prefer to see different sized Elinks with each size up having a lower cycle time. Maybe start at minutes on s down to one minute on x large. Ranges are odd to me on these things but I would like to see them scale with size like you say. Smaller ships should have a harder time, the risk should be appropriate to amount of harassment that can be dealt out. Yesterday's weirdness is tomorrow's reason why. Hunter S. Thompson
Nolak Ataru KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 768	Posted - 2015.03.11 06:58:07 - [1494] - Quote Mike Azariah wrote: I did look at the Skynet thread, still do. I have said there that I am against afk play of any sort and so I am not grr fighters I am grr you do all the work with my tools. So are you also against the proposed change to add a 50-100km bubble around a POS and making fighters scrammable as opposed to the absolute removal? Quote: The CSM cannot force anything, you know that. If that means you believe us to be useless, well that is your call. I humbly disagree. CSM Corebloodbrother and his near religious hatred of ISBoxers, and his admittance that he forced CCP to turn around regarding ISBoxer discredits your claim. Quote: But do you honestly believe that all the discussion here about trollceptors has advanced the thought process? I mean after the first ten pages. THAT is what I mean by repetition. If "discussion" you mean arguing over the viability of a ship by an alliance with over eleven THOUSAND members in over 300 corporations that currently owns 138 systems and has some serious thinkers in their rank, vs people who are utterly "grr gewns" and have not proposed any idea that might support their ridiculous claims, then sure. There's a seriously poor signal-to-noise ratio, where most of the signal is the ones telling you to watch out for Interceptors is the signal. Quote: I am here because this matters (to me and some of you) I'd believe that if we saw more activity from you in the ISBoxer thread, or the fighter thread.
Kaarous Aldurald Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE. 12105	Posted - 2015.03.11 07:08:46 - [1495] - Quote Mike Azariah wrote: I have said there that I am against afk play of any sort This, from one of the most public defenders of mining, miners and general carebearing. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs.
Carniflex StarHunt Mordus Angels 334	Posted - 2015.03.11 07:15:02 - [1496] - Quote Nolak Ataru wrote: CSM Corebloodbrother and his near religious hatred of ISBoxers, and his admittance that he forced CCP to turn around regarding ISBoxer discredits your claim. I have not been keeping an eye who tries to take credit for what, however, the change of policy in regards of ISBoxer was probably a reasonable decision and possibly backed up by the data at CCP disposal (say, based on number of people dropping sub because of "ISBoxer" as the reason). If that decision would not have been made then in my opinion after the next 2 to 5 years over half the accounts would have been ISBoxers and those without that program would have been just a content for ISBoxers. It would not have been a particularly healthy situation as CCP would have been far too reliant on ISBoxers for their income and on the other hand the "regular" subs would have kept dwindling as in pay-to-win game the peons get fed up sooner or later. After "regular" peons would have been gone PLEX prices would have ended up somewhere where even ISBoxers would have had to start using CC for subs or mothball accounts and at that point the ISBoxer related subs would have tanked also hard. Here, sanity... niiiice sanity, come to daddy... okay, that's a good sanity... THWONK! GOT the bastard.
Kaarous Aldurald Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE. 12105	Posted - 2015.03.11 07:21:08 - [1497] - Quote Carniflex wrote: Nolak Ataru wrote: CSM Corebloodbrother and his near religious hatred of ISBoxers, and his admittance that he forced CCP to turn around regarding ISBoxer discredits your claim. I have not been keeping an eye who tries to take credit for what, however, the change of policy in regards of ISBoxer was probably a reasonable decision and possibly backed up by the data at CCP disposal (say, based on number of people dropping sub because of "ISBoxer" as the reason). Well, if it wasn't core, then he took great pleasure in the decision. His taunting in that thread exceeded even mine, and I've been a vocal anti ISBoxer advocate for a long time. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs.
Wanda Fayne Gurlz with Gunz 57	Posted - 2015.03.11 07:50:55 - [1498] - Quote Burl en Daire wrote: Wanda Fayne wrote: Burl en Daire wrote: Wanda Fayne wrote: I like the fuel idea, but it will die with the other good ideas... Now lets cut to the chase: As a revolutionary idea, lets put the meat on the table and require the entosis link to have a PLEX in the cargohold to activate. Does not consume it, just requires it to be in the ship for the link to work. 1. No trolling without substantial risk 2. Any ship in the game can carry one 3. Requires no additional modifications to the existing proposals. I dare anyone to defeat this idea, as it nails the trolling argument coffin closed. I love the idea but the cost barrier is a bit steep. If I was in a smaller gang and wanted to provoke a fight in null using an Elink it would take 700m just to do it, not counting hulls, fits or implants. I would vote it in but I think the entry barrier is too high for this particular mechanic. Also, it would allow only the super rich to troll any group at any time because as many have said, interceptors can't be caught. Take the recent minilove theft, 250B gone and it's no big deal, that is like 350 PLEX that could go to trolling and not many other organizations could do that. True, but the defender will also be sporting one, now isn't that raising your interest already? Edit: Are you there to provoke a fight, or seriously contend for sov? I am looking for the elusive GF by goading out people to protect their assets. WH, LS and some HS players may want to get a fight and this mechanic allows that, not all Elinks will be trolls or eviction notices, some will be people wanting quick fights so they can get some kills and go home. Fair enough. But I don't believe the E.L. was intended this way, which is why I put forward a steeper "Ante-Up" approach. It is intended as a tool of war, and while easily implemented should have a more serious intent in practice.
Nolak Ataru KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 768	Posted - 2015.03.11 08:06:37 - [1499] - Quote Carniflex wrote: I have not been keeping an eye who tries to take credit for what, however, the change of policy in regards of ISBoxer was probably a reasonable decision and possibly backed up by the data at CCP disposal (say, based on number of people dropping sub because of "ISBoxer" as the reason). If that was the reason, they would have cited it. If CCP had ANY data, they would have produced it, as they've proven time and again they are a data-driven company first, emotions second. Quote: If that decision would not have been made then in my opinion after the next 2 to 5 years over half the accounts would have been ISBoxers [Citation needed] Quote: and those without that program would have been just a content for ISBoxers. [Citation needed] Quote: the "regular" subs would have kept dwindling as in pay-to-win game the peons get fed up sooner or later. [CITATION BLOODY NEEDED] I've personally seen more people quit in one month due to gankers and scammers than I have because of ISBoxers in my entire 3-4 years of playing EVE Online. I've seen more people complain about scammers and gankers than ISBoxers, I've seen more people dock up and hide over gankers than ISBoxers, and I've certainly seen more damage caused in this game by scammers than ISBoxers. Now let me pause in this semi-rant for a moment to say I support gankers. I've been one myself, and I've been the victim myself. In all my times as a victim, I can safely say I died to my own stupidity and laziness than to any other factors combined. I've also dabbled in scamming, but found it wasn't to my taste. However, I did not go whining to CCP simply because I didn't find it to my liking. Quote: After "regular" peons would have been gone PLEX prices would have ended up somewhere where even ISBoxers would have had to start using CC for subs or mothball accounts and at that point the ISBoxer related subs would have tanked also hard. Not even touching your "correlation =/= causation" fallacy, there are some ISBoxers who pay with a card for subs rather than PLEX, myself included. I know another boxer who pays for most of his accounts with his card as well. F- it, I'll touch your fallacy. You have no idea how ISBoxer affects PLEX price because there's literally hundreds of different things that could possibly affect such an item. Attempting to single one item out in a sea of hundreds, and pointing to that as a major player, is ludicrous, and any economist worth his salt would laugh you out of his office.
Carniflex StarHunt Mordus Angels 334	Posted - 2015.03.11 08:37:11 - [1500] - Quote Well we are getting distracted with ISBoxer. I do not have citations for that - just a educated guess based on my observations in-game. Overall the change did not affect me directly so I'm not interested enough in that to get into a pissing contest on that subject. What I am interested about is the new sov changes. My overall impression is positive although I do believe this idea will need some more polish before implementation - which it is clearly scheduled to get considering it's supposed to hit the server in June. Leaving aside a trollceptor that is not an issue as far as I can see I think one thing that IS an issue with the new sov system is maximum supported population density by a given 0.0 system. This is issue because if an alliance needs or wants to form as tight ball as possible to reduce its space footprint to minimum there is a minimum number of systems it needs to take to "fit". This aspect is unique to sov null and WH's as hi sec, low sec and NPC null have agents which can support, in theory, as high population densities as server can handle. One of the solutions for that (suggested also previously by several people in various places over the years) is allowing some kind of agents in sov null systems. How exactly is not that important but I see several possibilities - agent in space (like COSMOS agents) - could be killed, would "respawn" somewhere and fly back to its target system after a bit. - station upgrade or ability to hire it in station. - some kind of structure to interact with - some kind of ihub upgrade Granted this kind of would remove the resource scarcity at grunt level. Here, sanity... niiiice sanity, come to daddy... okay, that's a good sanity... THWONK! GOT the bastard.

Primary This Rifter 4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation 729	Posted - 2015.03.11 09:40:30 - [1501] - Quote Nolak Ataru wrote: Mike Azariah wrote: Most useless and the most useful here, not a wide field of competition. How do you imagine 'testing' the sov structure on Sisi? Who would have a vested interest in trying it out? Defending it? As to what was said behind closed doors in my official capacity? There is a reason the doors are closed. Or do you mean to say you wish to compare my take to that which your OWN CSM reps have told you? What's that? They haven't told you squat? Well, I am suuuure they know what is best for you, just the same. I LIKE that it fits on an interceptor for exactly the same reasons you do not. That means there are demands of occupancy in depth, not just on choke points and border regions. That means that if you cannot find people to do said occupancy it will be trivial for you to lose that space. On the other hand I do not like the concept of people not bothering with territorial control hubs because they are too easily blown up. The math one person put up was well presented and worth looking at . . . in depth. But rather than using this as a reason to cut the interceptor fits I take it as a reason to increase reasons to have sov in local space and maybe push for a decrease in the cost of the TCUs. Volume and repetition only goes so far. I much prefer one good post to 50 bad ones. It is why I wade through this and other forums, I am panning for gold in a whole lot of mud/sand. Mike, that's horsepucky and you bloody know it. Look at the Fighter assist thread and you'll see. 57 (pruned) pages of sensible changes and people telling CCP "No, but if you do XYZ it'll have a similar effect" and a seriously juicy Revenant killmail, and not ONE can give me a good argument as to why we should remove fighter assist instead of adding a bubble around a POS where you can't assign fighters and making fighters scrammable, and all CCP Fozzie can say is "Thanks for posting, but we're going to ignore what we said about taking your feedback into account and go ahead with this anyways". People are getting tired of CCP saying one thing and doing another. I've still yet to hear from CCP Falcon about that sit down that we were promised that he recently broke his word on, so after the fighter thread, and given this **-poor idea, I'm under the distinct impression that if I were to stack CCP's word against that of a Jita local scammer, I'd have better odds on getting the scammer to actually talk back or take some advice. We wish to wonder what exactly the use of a CSM is if that CSM cannot make CCP listen to us, take what we say seriously, or even respond to what we say to begin with. I'm reminded heavily of a book I read when I was younger that talked about the difference between "listening" and "hearing", where "hearing" is when person A says he wants to join the Army, and person B starts going on about his brother in the Army just because he heard "Army". "Listening" is when person A says he wants to join the army, and person B takes the time to discuss his decision and choice at length and in great detail to make sure it's the best choice possible. I'll leave you to guess which of the two CCP has been doing of late. If you want to see the difference between "volume" and "repetition", look at the fighter thread. Hundreds of "grr fighters" badposting, and zero actually taking the time to even attempt to discuss why fighter assist is bad. I'm not even going to talk about the ISBoxer thread where nobody at all has given us a solid reason why ISBoxer should be banned, other than screaming "muh ISK" and "muh effort" when they are exposed to facts, logic, and reason, all the while sticking their heads in the sand and shouting "lalalala can't hear you" when their fallacies and insults are exposed. Yeah. I'm getting real tired of CCP's *, to be quite honest. CCP: "We're doing X because reasons." Players: "Why can't you do Y? It's not as heavy handed as X, it still allows interesting gameplay, and it fixes the same problem just as well. We also know you can* do it, considering you've coded something very similar in the past." CCP: "Thank you for your feedback. We're still going ahead and doing X anyway." Doesn't address Y at all, even just to say "it won't work" without explanation Yeah, this leaves us a real impression that they care about our feedback. It's really only when players are overwhelmingly against a change that they really bother considering alternatives, such as when CCP was considering giving freighters rig slots. Reminder: CCP thinks you have no right to your alliance logos.
Yroc Jannseen Enlightened Industries Goonswarm Federation 71	Posted - 2015.03.11 10:07:46 - [1502] - Quote Mike Azariah wrote: I did look at the Skynet thread, still do. I have said there that I am against afk play of any sort and so I am not grr fighters I am grr you do all the work with my tools. The CSM cannot force anything, you know that. If that means you believe us to be useless, well that is your call. I humbly disagree. But do you honestly believe that all the discussion here about trollceptors has advanced the thought process? I mean after the first ten pages. THAT is what I mean by repetition. Comments on recent ideas: No, I do not think it should be a deployable. I am still in favour of fuel. I agree that the long range of the T2 is to make the ship the limiting factor, not the module oh, and I am not here as part of some campaign effort. If I was I would have stopped when the polls closed I am here because this matters (to me and some of you) m All of the repetition can be put to an end by CCP taking an actual stance or making a real response to concerns. Frankly the OP was a bit patronizing and on top of that added very little other than to say they are opposed to most of the communities ideas. But thanks for feedback. For all of his faults at least Greyscale engaged with the these threads.
Kagura Nikon Mentally Assured Destruction The Pursuit of Happiness 2021	Posted - 2015.03.11 10:28:27 - [1503] - Quote Please please. Some people here need to go back and READ THE ORIGINAL DEV BLOG! More than half clearly did not read it completely and do not understand how the mechanics will work! The absolute majority for example is ignoring the fact that entosis links can be cancelled by opposing entosis links!!! That ALONE already cancels the troll ceptor issue! Too many doomsayers that propose scenrios that depend on the enemy doing NOTHING except rolling over and dieing! This system is designed EXACLTY to make people FORCED to react! And reaction is EASY!!! It is easy to cancel a troll ceptor effect.. forcing the ceptors side to move to other place or ESCALATE. If escalation happens then the mechanics are SUCCESSFUL! "If brute force does not solve your problem.... then you are surely not using enough!" For the rest hire PoH \| Recruitment
Kaarous Aldurald Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE. 12106	Posted - 2015.03.11 10:39:36 - [1504] - Quote Kagura Nikon wrote: That ALONE already cancels the troll ceptor issue! And brings up the "it's not promoting conflict" issue. It's just two guys sitting on opposite sides of a button across from each other, waiting for the other guy to get bored and leave. So long as the Entosis modules can be fitted on frigates, the optimal strategy will be to not fight, just **** around until the other guy dies of boredom. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs.
Dave Stark 7440	Posted - 2015.03.11 10:46:13 - [1505] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Kagura Nikon wrote: That ALONE already cancels the troll ceptor issue! And brings up the "it's not promoting conflict" issue. It's just two guys sitting on opposite sides of a button across from each other, waiting for the other guy to get bored and leave. So long as the Entosis modules can be fitted on frigates, the optimal strategy will be to not fight, just **** around until the other guy dies of boredom. weaponised boredom, as pointed out in the devblog, is something they want to move away from.
Kaarous Aldurald Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE. 12106	Posted - 2015.03.11 10:54:41 - [1506] - Quote Dave Stark wrote: Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Kagura Nikon wrote: That ALONE already cancels the troll ceptor issue! And brings up the "it's not promoting conflict" issue. It's just two guys sitting on opposite sides of a button across from each other, waiting for the other guy to get bored and leave. So long as the Entosis modules can be fitted on frigates, the optimal strategy will be to not fight, just **** around until the other guy dies of boredom. weaponised boredom, as pointed out in the devblog, is something they want to move away from. Move away from, highly incentivize, same basic principle. The point is that something is being done about/with weaponized boredom. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs.
knobber Jobbler Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 528	Posted - 2015.03.11 11:27:02 - [1507] - Quote Dave Stark wrote: Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Kagura Nikon wrote: That ALONE already cancels the troll ceptor issue! And brings up the "it's not promoting conflict" issue. It's just two guys sitting on opposite sides of a button across from each other, waiting for the other guy to get bored and leave. So long as the Entosis modules can be fitted on frigates, the optimal strategy will be to not fight, just **** around until the other guy dies of boredom. weaponised boredom, as pointed out in the devblog, is something they want to move away from. Rise said he wanted to nerf Ishtars and look how that turned out. Practically no difference. Saying and doing is entirely unrelated. In this instance they've come up with an idea which on paper looks fine but in reality will be precisely which they are keen to avoid. Instead of taking this feedback and applying it, they along with various other people - notably those who don't, won't or can't get into nullsec - are defending it.
Veskrashen Justified Chaos Spaceship Bebop 792	Posted - 2015.03.11 11:27:21 - [1508] - Quote Carniflex wrote: Leaving aside a trollceptor that is not an issue as far as I can see I think one thing that IS an issue with the new sov system is maximum supported population density by a given 0.0 system. This is issue because if an alliance needs or wants to form as tight ball as possible to reduce its space footprint to minimum there is a minimum number of systems it needs to take to "fit". This aspect is unique to sov null and WH's as hi sec, low sec and NPC null have agents which can support, in theory, as high population densities as server can handle. One of the solutions for that (suggested also previously by several people in various places over the years) is allowing some kind of agents in sov null systems. How exactly is not that important but I see several possibilities - agent in space (like COSMOS agents) - could be killed, would "respawn" somewhere and fly back to its target system after a bit. - station upgrade or ability to hire it in station. - some kind of structure to interact with - some kind of ihub upgrade Granted this kind of would remove the resource scarcity at grunt level. Aside from the fact that this isn't the right thread for this part of the discussion - this is Entosis Link module balance only - it's been strongly hinted that the income in sov space will be looked at in Sov 3.0 (see here for example). I like the idea of agents in nullsec, but they need to be balanced where you can just have the entire CFC balled up in Deklein behind bubble walls of death happily running L5s over and over again. There needs to be limits to how they're spawned, maintained, and run. My personal idea is that either they're agents in space, or any station with agents is freeported. We Gallente have a saying: "CCP created the Gallente Militia to train the Fighters..."
Aralyn Cormallen Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation 859	Posted - 2015.03.11 11:28:50 - [1509] - Quote Veskrashen wrote: 2. The problem that Gewns et al have with Trollceptors is that they can avoid bubblecamps with instalockers. This is, in fact, by design - the entire idea of Interceptors is to create a class of high speed ships that can go ANYWHERE with ease. When was the ship class called Escapers? Or Avoiders? They are Interceptors, their reason to be is to Intercept. And they do that well, their bubble-immunity allows them to crash through attempts to delay a pursuit and intercept a fleeing foe. Unfortunatly, they are too good at it, and instead became the fleeing foe. Quote: Giving them the ability to mount a Sovlaser just means those ships can have an impact on sov - which is a very, very good thing and a necessary thing from a design standpoint. Removing their ability to mount / use a sovlaser means that nullblocs can simply hellbubblecamp the chokepoints and remove all threats to their sov aside from wormholers (who are generally insane and uninterested in sov per se). Since when is actively defending your sov not supposed to be enough? I'm sorry that gate camps have instilled ptsd in you related to bubbles, but they are a feature of nullsec. The very essence of nullsec should be setting up a defence, controlling the terrain to help the defenders repel invaders, and I'm sorry, but that means lone vandals might have to lose a ship every once in a while. Aww. Castles have walls, they do not require soldiers stationed on the roof of every hut. We let you through the walls, and you run amok, we deserve to be scampering to put out the fires. But we man the walls with a solid defence, why shouldn't you have to make the slightest effort to actually breach that defence? And seriously, how big an effort do you really need to exert? Just, nut up, bust the camp and get your guys in; you don't even need to get a whole fleet in, just send a suicide team to engage the camp while you get a cyno frig in and blops or bridge as many entosis-ships as you like in to the interior. Quote: I look forward to the trollposts of nullbears unable to adapt. Cheers! "Every poster who disagrees with me is a troll", really? Sorry, put put some effort in. The defenders are going to have to, the attackers should to.
ISD Ezwal ISD Community Communications Liaisons 4023	Posted - 2015.03.11 11:32:10 - [1510] - Quote I have removed some rule breaking posts and those quoting them. As always I let some edge cases stay. The Rules: 3. Ranting is prohibited. A rant is a post that is often filled with angry and counter productive comments. A free exchange of ideas is essential to building a strong sense of community and is helpful in development of the game and community. Rants are disruptive, and incite flaming and trolling. Please post your thoughts in a concise and clear manner while avoiding going off on rambling tangents. 4. Personal attacks are prohibited. Commonly known as flaming, personal attacks are posts that are designed to personally berate or insult another forum user. Posts of this nature are not beneficial to the community spirit that CCP promote and as such they will not be tolerated. 5. Trolling is prohibited. Trolling is a defined as a post that is deliberately designed for the purpose of angering and insulting other players in an attempt to incite retaliation or an emotional response. Posts of this nature are disruptive, often abusive and do not contribute to the sense of community that CCP promote. ISD Ezwal Vice Admiral Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs) Interstellar Services Department

Primary This Rifter 4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation 729	Posted - 2015.03.11 11:37:33 - [1511] - Quote Primary This Rifter wrote: Nolak Ataru wrote: Mike Azariah wrote: Most useless and the most useful here, not a wide field of competition. How do you imagine 'testing' the sov structure on Sisi? Who would have a vested interest in trying it out? Defending it? As to what was said behind closed doors in my official capacity? There is a reason the doors are closed. Or do you mean to say you wish to compare my take to that which your OWN CSM reps have told you? What's that? They haven't told you squat? Well, I am suuuure they know what is best for you, just the same. I LIKE that it fits on an interceptor for exactly the same reasons you do not. That means there are demands of occupancy in depth, not just on choke points and border regions. That means that if you cannot find people to do said occupancy it will be trivial for you to lose that space. On the other hand I do not like the concept of people not bothering with territorial control hubs because they are too easily blown up. The math one person put up was well presented and worth looking at . . . in depth. But rather than using this as a reason to cut the interceptor fits I take it as a reason to increase reasons to have sov in local space and maybe push for a decrease in the cost of the TCUs. Volume and repetition only goes so far. I much prefer one good post to 50 bad ones. It is why I wade through this and other forums, I am panning for gold in a whole lot of mud/sand. Mike, that's horsepucky and you bloody know it. Look at the Fighter assist thread and you'll see. 57 (pruned) pages of sensible changes and people telling CCP "No, but if you do XYZ it'll have a similar effect" and a seriously juicy Revenant killmail, and not ONE can give me a good argument as to why we should remove fighter assist instead of adding a bubble around a POS where you can't assign fighters and making fighters scrammable, and all CCP Fozzie can say is "Thanks for posting, but we're going to ignore what we said about taking your feedback into account and go ahead with this anyways". People are getting tired of CCP saying one thing and doing another. I've still yet to hear from CCP Falcon about that sit down that we were promised that he recently broke his word on, so after the fighter thread, and given this **-poor idea, I'm under the distinct impression that if I were to stack CCP's word against that of a Jita local scammer, I'd have better odds on getting the scammer to actually talk back or take some advice. We wish to wonder what exactly the use of a CSM is if that CSM cannot make CCP listen to us, take what we say seriously, or even respond to what we say to begin with. I'm reminded heavily of a book I read when I was younger that talked about the difference between "listening" and "hearing", where "hearing" is when person A says he wants to join the Army, and person B starts going on about his brother in the Army just because he heard "Army". "Listening" is when person A says he wants to join the army, and person B takes the time to discuss his decision and choice at length and in great detail to make sure it's the best choice possible. I'll leave you to guess which of the two CCP has been doing of late. If you want to see the difference between "volume" and "repetition", look at the fighter thread. Hundreds of "grr fighters" badposting, and zero actually taking the time to even attempt to discuss why fighter assist is bad. I'm not even going to talk about the ISBoxer thread where nobody at all has given us a solid reason why ISBoxer should be banned, other than screaming "muh ISK" and "muh effort" when they are exposed to facts, logic, and reason, all the while sticking their heads in the sand and shouting "lalalala can't hear you" when their fallacies and insults are exposed. Yeah. I'm getting real tired of CCP's *, to be quite honest. CCP: "We're doing X because reasons." Players: "Why can't you do Y? It's not as heavy handed as X, it still allows interesting gameplay, and it fixes the same problem just as well. We also know you can* do it, considering you've coded something very similar in the past." CCP: "Thank you for your feedback. We're still going ahead and doing X anyway." Doesn't address Y at all, even just to say "it won't work" without explanation Yeah, this leaves us a real impression that they care about our feedback. It's really only when players are overwhelmingly against a change that they really bother considering alternatives, such as when CCP was considering giving freighters rig slots. Reposting this. It wasn't a rant, it wasn't a personal attack, and it wasn't trolling. It was deleted anyway. Do not delete it again. Reminder: CCP thinks you have no right to your alliance logos.
Sougiro Seta We are not bad. Just unlucky Goonswarm Federation 27	Posted - 2015.03.11 11:39:36 - [1512] - Quote Going from one pole to another is just a dumb move. "We don't want sov to be a structure grinding inferno" -> "Let's make sov attainable with frigates at zero risk, gypsy factional sovwar for everyone!" There's a spanish proberb which says, more or less, that "on the midpoint you'll find the virtue" It's the same problem we had with Phoebe, and the same one we're going to enjoy with the supers rebalance: an absolute lack of thinking levels and planification. Not trying to precisely solve problems but, instead, nuking whole parts of the game core because \o/ At least, CCP game designers are just making videogames. Imagine them as medics: Patient Seta: "hey Dr. Fozzie, I've an herpes on my lip" Dr.Fozzie: "behead him"
Primary This Rifter 4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation 730	Posted - 2015.03.11 11:47:39 - [1513] - Quote Some other posts that were deleted for no good reason: http://eve-search.com/thread/411402-1/page/50#1491 http://eve-search.com/thread/411402-1/page/51#1502 http://eve-search.com/thread/411402-1/page/50#1499 http://eve-search.com/thread/411402-1/page/50#1497 http://eve-search.com/thread/411402-1/page/50#1496 http://eve-search.com/thread/411402-1/page/50#1482 (I mean, what the ****? Seriously?) I can't even be bothered to go through them all but jesus christ, you're getting a little trigger happy aren't you? Reminder: CCP thinks you have no right to your alliance logos.
Kaarous Aldurald Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE. 12106	Posted - 2015.03.11 11:48:29 - [1514] - Quote Primary This Rifter wrote: Reposting this. It wasn't a rant, it wasn't a personal attack, and it wasn't trolling. It was deleted anyway. Do not delete it again. It was quoting something that could arguably be a rant and a personal attack, though. Perhaps re-frame it? "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs.
Primary This Rifter 4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation 730	Posted - 2015.03.11 11:50:06 - [1515] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Primary This Rifter wrote: Reposting this. It wasn't a rant, it wasn't a personal attack, and it wasn't trolling. It was deleted anyway. Do not delete it again. It was quoting something that could arguably be a rant and a personal attack, though. Perhaps re-frame it? That's not my problem. If I'm quoting a rule breaking post, but my post itself doesn't break the rules, then ISD should just snip the rule breaking post instead of deleting my post entirely. The same goes for every other post that gets deleted for this reason. Reminder: CCP thinks you have no right to your alliance logos.
Veskrashen Justified Chaos Spaceship Bebop 793	Posted - 2015.03.11 11:56:25 - [1516] - Quote Aralyn Cormallen wrote: When was the ship class called Escapers? Or Avoiders? They are Interceptors, their reason to be is to Intercept. And they do that well, their bubble-immunity allows them to crash through attempts to delay a pursuit and intercept a fleeing foe. Unfortunatly, they are too good at it, and instead became the fleeing foe. If they could be delayed by bubbles and/or unable to instawarp, they wouldn't be that good at Intercepting stuff a few jumps away, would they? But hey - glad to see the issue remains that Interceptors can avoid bubblecamps, not their speed or lock range or any of that other stuff. Quote: Since when is actively defending your sov not supposed to be enough? I'm sorry that gate camps have instilled ptsd in you related to bubbles, but they are a feature of nullsec. The very essence of nullsec should be setting up a defence, controlling the terrain to help the defenders repel invaders, and I'm sorry, but that means lone vandals might have to lose a ship every once in a while. Aww. Castles have walls, they do not require soldiers stationed on the roof of every hut. We let you through the walls, and you run amok, we deserve to be scampering to put out the fires. But we man the walls with a solid defence, why shouldn't you have to make the slightest effort to actually breach that defence? And seriously, how big an effort do you really need to exert? Just, nut up, bust the camp and get your guys in; you don't even need to get a whole fleet in, just send a suicide team to engage the camp while you get a cyno frig in and blops or bridge as many entosis-ships as you like in to the interior. Yes, you should be able to actively defend your space. And you absolutely can with the new mechanic, just like in the current sov system. Even against the invincible unkillable uncounterable Trollceptor. The fact that "actively defending your space" means being active defending your space in more places than just chokepoints doesn't change that fact. Look, bubble the hell out of the chokepoints. It's a great idea, works well, and keeps about 90%+ of the solo threats out. It puts a nice high bar for folks to clear if they want to bring bigger ships. What it should NOT do is give you total immunity. Having Sovlazors on Trollceptors is a very simple way of ensuring you won't be. We Gallente have a saying: "CCP created the Gallente Militia to train the Fighters..."
Veskrashen Justified Chaos Spaceship Bebop 793	Posted - 2015.03.11 12:01:52 - [1517] - Quote Sougiro Seta wrote: Going from one pole to another is just a dumb move. "We don't want sov to be a structure grinding inferno" -> "Let's make sov attainable with frigates at zero risk, gypsy factional sovwar for everyone!" Frigates are incredibly fragile things that can be countered in a bazillion ways. If you do, that pilot is stuck in a pod far far from home. Man the F up already and accept that you're going to actually have to defend the space you live in, and start figuring out how to catch the little buggers. Or, yanno, don't. I hear L4s in Osmon are really fun or something. We Gallente have a saying: "CCP created the Gallente Militia to train the Fighters..."
Kaarous Aldurald Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE. 12106	Posted - 2015.03.11 12:01:55 - [1518] - Quote Primary This Rifter wrote: Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Primary This Rifter wrote: Reposting this. It wasn't a rant, it wasn't a personal attack, and it wasn't trolling. It was deleted anyway. Do not delete it again. It was quoting something that could arguably be a rant and a personal attack, though. Perhaps re-frame it? That's not my problem. If I'm quoting a rule breaking post, but my post itself doesn't break the rules, then ISD should just snip the rule breaking post instead of deleting my post entirely. The same goes for every other post that gets deleted for this reason. I don't disagree, but discussing forum moderation won't help. I believe you need to file a ticket if you have an issue with forum moderation. Don't know for certain, never tried it myself. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs.
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 15459	Posted - 2015.03.11 12:01:57 - [1519] - Quote Veskrashen wrote: Aralyn Cormallen wrote: When was the ship class called Escapers? Or Avoiders? They are Interceptors, their reason to be is to Intercept. And they do that well, their bubble-immunity allows them to crash through attempts to delay a pursuit and intercept a fleeing foe. Unfortunatly, they are too good at it, and instead became the fleeing foe. If they could be delayed by bubbles and/or unable to instawarp, they wouldn't be that good at Intercepting stuff a few jumps away, would they? But hey - glad to see the issue remains that Interceptors can avoid bubblecamps, not their speed or lock range or any of that other stuff. Quote: Since when is actively defending your sov not supposed to be enough? I'm sorry that gate camps have instilled ptsd in you related to bubbles, but they are a feature of nullsec. The very essence of nullsec should be setting up a defence, controlling the terrain to help the defenders repel invaders, and I'm sorry, but that means lone vandals might have to lose a ship every once in a while. Aww. Castles have walls, they do not require soldiers stationed on the roof of every hut. We let you through the walls, and you run amok, we deserve to be scampering to put out the fires. But we man the walls with a solid defence, why shouldn't you have to make the slightest effort to actually breach that defence? And seriously, how big an effort do you really need to exert? Just, nut up, bust the camp and get your guys in; you don't even need to get a whole fleet in, just send a suicide team to engage the camp while you get a cyno frig in and blops or bridge as many entosis-ships as you like in to the interior. Yes, you should be able to actively defend your space. And you absolutely can with the new mechanic, just like in the current sov system. Even against the invincible unkillable uncounterable Trollceptor. The fact that "actively defending your space" means being active defending your space in more places than just chokepoints doesn't change that fact. Look, bubble the hell out of the chokepoints. It's a great idea, works well, and keeps about 90%+ of the solo threats out. It puts a nice high bar for folks to clear if they want to bring bigger ships. What it should NOT do is give you total immunity. Having Sovlazors on Trollceptors is a very simple way of ensuring you won't be. So what exactly do you find fun about having to deal with attacks on your sov from ships you cant catch for 4 hours every day of every year? Zero fights, zero kills and no fun to be had at all. THIS is what is so bad about the trollcepter, it means wars in the future will be mostly nothing but uncatchable interceptors sapping the willpower of the enemy for months on end. Defenders should actively fight to keep their space but the same needs to apply to the attackers too. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
Freedom Nadd University of Caille Gallente Federation 6	Posted - 2015.03.11 12:14:54 - [1520] - Quote ISD Ezwal wrote: Carniflex wrote: They don't show netflix legally outside of US :/ Yes, they do. Alavaria Fera wrote: Though the poor chaps that have to clean the thread... shrug Thank you for your consideration. GeeShizzle MacCloud wrote: 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 all their work clearing out all the dreck from these threads. Untill next week then! I'm looking forward to those beers... That said, I have removed some rule breaking posts and those quoting them. As always I let some edge cases stay. Please people, keep it on topic and above all civil! The Rules: 4. Personal attacks are prohibited. Commonly known as flaming, personal attacks are posts that are designed to personally berate or insult another forum user. Posts of this nature are not beneficial to the community spirit that CCP promote and as such they will not be tolerated. 5. Trolling is prohibited. Trolling is a defined as a post that is deliberately designed for the purpose of angering and insulting other players in an attempt to incite retaliation or an emotional response. Posts of this nature are disruptive, often abusive and do not contribute to the sense of community that CCP promote. 27. Off-topic posting is prohibited. Off-topic posting is permitted within reason, as sometimes a single comment may color or lighten the tone of discussion. However, excessive posting of off-topic remarks in an attempt to derail a thread may result in the thread being locked, or a forum warning being issued to the off-topic poster. 32. Rumor mongering is prohibited. Rumor threads and posts which are based off no actual solid information and are designed to either troll or annoy other users will be locked and removed. These kinds of threads and posts are detrimental to the well being and spirit of the EVE Online Community, and can create undue panic among forum users, as well as adding to the workload of our moderators. Thread reopened. Deleting threads for rumour mongering in a discussion in the F+I section ... about a module where CCP are apparently seeking feedback without actually disclosing the details of said module .... a little heavy handed perhaps? Also perhaps time for the ACTUAL gameplay details to be released including fitting requirements so mongering of rumours can be avoided?

Dave Stark 7443	Posted - 2015.03.11 12:18:54 - [1521] - Quote knobber Jobbler wrote: In this instance they've come up with an idea which on paper looks fine but in reality will be precisely which they are keen to avoid. Instead of taking this feedback and applying it, they along with various other people - notably those who don't, won't or can't get into nullsec - are defending it. even on paper it looks pretty meh. nothing about the new sov system makes me want to go and particpate in anything remotely related to sov. making isk is ** in sov null, i don't need to live there to pvp there, living there is a logistical pain in the **, and this new sov system just sounds like if i were to want to participate i want to find some one who's prime time is outside of my usual playing hours so i don't have to deal with things like "trollceptors" (which yes, we know won't take all our sov, but equally i don't want to spend 4hrs a day chasing them off - it's dull)
Kaarous Aldurald Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE. 12107	Posted - 2015.03.11 12:39:57 - [1522] - Quote Dave Stark wrote: nothing about the new sov system makes me want to go and particpate in anything remotely related to sov. My metric was much the same. When I said to myself "Self, what would you do with this new system?", he answered with "well, about all that can be done is just screw with the people who live there, make their lives hell." Then the third guy said "Hey wait, we already have a way to screw with renters, AFK cloaking, and it works fine", to which myself responded "Yeah, but now we can force them to waste literal hours of their time with almost no recourse against us". And the fourth guy chimed in with "Yes, precious! We will take the Fedo from the filthy Gallente, yes yes! Gollum!" and then the other three whacked him on the noggin. And yes, before you mention it, I am fully aware that I have a rich inner life. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs.
Freedom Nadd University of Caille Gallente Federation 6	Posted - 2015.03.11 12:44:19 - [1523] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Dave Stark wrote: nothing about the new sov system makes me want to go and particpate in anything remotely related to sov. My metric was much the same. When I said to myself "Self, what would you do with this new system?", he answered with "well, about all that can be done is just screw with the people who live there, make their lives hell." Then the third guy said "Hey wait, we already have a way to screw with renters, AFK cloaking, and it works fine", to which myself responded "Yeah, but now we can force them to waste literal hours of their time with almost no recourse against us". And the fourth guy chimed in with "Yes, precious! We will take the Fedo from the filthy Gallente, yes yes! Gollum!" and then the other three whacked him on the noggin. And yes, before you mention it, I am fully aware that I have a rich inner life. And in one finely crafted response does the Yay camp rest it's case.
Aralyn Cormallen Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation 862	Posted - 2015.03.11 12:54:44 - [1524] - Quote Veskrashen wrote: Look, bubble the hell out of the chokepoints. It's a great idea, works well, and keeps about 90%+ of the solo threats out. It puts a nice high bar for folks to clear if they want to bring bigger ships. 90%? High bar? Try like 1% and the lowest bar offered. Take a look around any sov region these days, its Ceptor, Ceptor, Ceptor, Co-ops, Ceptor, Ceptor, Astero. Its dull. And why would they want to bring bigger ships, doing so is actively placing yourself at a disadvantage. People don't do that in sov warfare. Quote: What it should NOT do is give you total immunity. What total immunity? Engage the camp. Either kill it, or distract it long enough to get your saboteurs through. People do this every day in EC-, in fact, I'd dare say the camp there is held more frequetly by hostiles than friendlies! Quote: EDIT: One other thing - Blopsing / Bridging past a camp into the interior still allows a defender to set up additional bubblehellcamps to box them in and prevent them from running amok, forcing them to extract. And whats wrong with that? That sounds like active defending to me. If they try to box you in, fight your way out. Every "concern" you have is negated by engaging in a fight, something all these non-sovholders will have us believe is what they are coming here for. Why do you not want that fight you came for?
Daimon Os Troll Soldiers 0	Posted - 2015.03.11 12:59:17 - [1525] - Quote Hi Fozzie, Why the 250km range on the T2 module? What was the thinking behind that number? If T2 range was 75km - targeting range for a vanilla Celestis - then 'trollceptors' wouldn't be a concern. Is it because a 75ish km range would favour brawling over sniping fleets? Because as the T2 range increases from 75km, so does the number of additional rules needed to prevent 'pure evasion' tactics. I believe that those additional rules (not interceptors, not T3s, no prop mods, etc) are _worse_ than a slight bias towards brawlers, who can activate entosis links as they land on grid, as opposed to snipers, who have to win the grid first. Many thanks for having this debate out in the open. Regards, - D
Eli Apol Definitely a nullsec alt 357	Posted - 2015.03.11 13:16:31 - [1526] - Quote Daimon Os wrote: Hi Fozzie, Why the 250km range on the T2 module? What was the thinking behind that number? I believe 250km is the maximum locking range in the game as a hard cap (at least someone said that many many pages ago in a galaxy long forgotten)
afkalt Republic Military School Minmatar Republic 924	Posted - 2015.03.11 13:28:58 - [1527] - Quote Borachon wrote: afkalt wrote: Unless you blob them - but blobbing to take sov... has no bearing on these debates. My point is that big groups will show up exactly because ihubs are , valuable, hard to replace, and the event is scheduled. We've all seen how PL has farmed BRAVE at timers, we know how many supers NC. has to throw around, and we all know exactly who Fozzie is referring to when he talks about "weaponinzing boredom". Even assuming you're right though, if you contested 95% of ihub pings: If it costs the attacker 25m per ihub ping (riiiight...), you'd have to win 75% of ihub reinforces to break even If it costs the attacker 10m per ihub ping, you'd have to win almost 90% of ihub reinforces to break even If it costs the attacker 5m per ihub ping, you'd have to win 94% of ihub reinforces to break even Having to win 95% of ihub pings and 95% of ihub reinforcements to break even is a pretty heavy burden. See now this, this is worth talking about. Much better than about 95% of the other posts in here! This point is valid almost IRRESPECTIVE of the (subcap) hulls this is mounted on. So this should be concentrated on as a priority and NOT the hulls - we all know how easy it is for a dedicated effort to get behind lines. Your point (I've assumed the numbers are valid) is a huge one and hinges around the entire mechanic and not the ships/modules themselves. I do wonder if it will take us into a M.A.D. type policy though. That being said, there are already a LOT of RF's done simply to cause grief/poke a fight with no intention of taking the asset RF'd. It is possible we are overestimating the level of harassment, as it it very possible to harass today.
Yroc Jannseen Enlightened Industries Goonswarm Federation 72	Posted - 2015.03.11 13:30:15 - [1528] - Quote Huh okay I guess you're just outright censoring posts now. Well even though this was a response to a Mike M post, that apparently was rule breaking, this view still has merit. All of the repetition can be put to an end by CCP taking an actual stance or making a real response to concerns. Frankly the OP was a bit patronizing and on top of that added very little other than to say they are opposed to most of the communities ideas. But thanks for feedback. For all of his faults at least Greyscale engaged with the these threads. I really think it would be in the best interest to tread lightly on the censorship.
hanabal drake Macabre Votum Northern Coalition. 5	Posted - 2015.03.11 13:48:30 - [1529] - Quote I dont know why you need to be told this fozzie but its pretty damn obvious that entosis links should not be able to be fit to frgs of any kind if you want to threaten someones sov that they live in and have invested time and isk in you shouldnt be able to fo it in a measly 40 mill frig it should be at the very least t2 destroyers and up and there should be a velocity penalty too people dont play eve so they can chase ceptors around thier space for 4 hours it will also make it very hard for smaller alliances to fend of attacks from larger ones and dosent help them at all
afkalt Republic Military School Minmatar Republic 924	Posted - 2015.03.11 13:57:54 - [1530] - Quote hanabal drake wrote: it will also make it very hard for smaller alliances to fend of attacks from larger ones and dosent help them at all They're (smalls) hardly smacking them around today either. As I posted above, with the data from Borachon - the hull makes literally no cost difference until you hit capitals. ANY T1 is going to be trivial because of insurance. We should not be focused on hulls so much as the entire mechanic.

Veskrashen Justified Chaos Spaceship Bebop 794	Posted - 2015.03.11 14:12:02 - [1531] - Quote baltec1 wrote: So what exactly do you find fun about having to deal with attacks on your sov from ships you cant catch for 4 hours every day of every year? Zero fights, zero kills and no fun to be had at all. THIS is what is so bad about the trollcepter, it means wars in the future will be mostly nothing but uncatchable interceptors sapping the willpower of the enemy for months on end. Defenders should actively fight to keep their space but the same needs to apply to the attackers too. I have every confidence in my ability to catch and kill Interceptors with no tank and meager DPS who are unable to warp off grid for 2-5 minutes at a time. Especially on my home turf, where I can bring links and use Snakes far more easily than they can. I understand that a culture where solo / small gang PvP is looked down upon and folks don't bother to log in and play the game unless there's a rage ping to sit on a titan and gank some poor idiot on the other side of the map might not breed the kind of pilots that can handle that kind of challenge, but that's a cultural failing on your part that CCP shouldn't cater to with easy mechanics. In addition, FW is essentially all about defending your sov - or attacking sov - that's vulnerable 23/7 from these kinds of threats. You all will have it far easier than we do - limited window of vulnerability, no need for the defender to work 2x as hard to undo the work of an attacker, no deadspace to worry about, etc etc etc - especially since the attacker can't disengage at will due to the Entosis Link preventing him from warping off. Look, I know you want to build a really high wall to keep all the rampaging hordes out, and thereby avoid having to be active in your space all over rather than just at a few strategic systems. Since that's directly counter to CCP's goal with these sov changes, and since Interceptors are pretty much the only reliable way to ensure you can't pull that kind of tactic off with ease, I think it's fair to say that we can expect Interceptors to be able to use Entosis Links, even (and perhaps especially) the T2 versions. It would probably be a lot more productive if folks started talking about what kind of limiting factors - cap use, fitting requirements, etc - that would force said Interceptors to make "interesting choices" to use them. While, of course, keeping in mind they still need to be able to be used on T1 frigates like Atrons. We Gallente have a saying: "CCP created the Gallente Militia to train the Fighters..."
Veskrashen Justified Chaos Spaceship Bebop 795	Posted - 2015.03.11 14:20:02 - [1532] - Quote Aralyn Cormallen wrote: 90%? High bar? Try like 1% and the lowest bar offered. Take a look around any sov region these days, its Ceptor, Ceptor, Ceptor, Co-ops, Ceptor, Ceptor, Astero. Its dull. And why would they want to bring bigger ships, doing so is actively placing yourself at a disadvantage. People don't do that in sov warfare. So what you're saying is that things are already bad enough that folks don't bother to bring anything other than a Ceptor, because they're too easily mobbed. Which, of course, pretty much demonstrates that in order to have any impact on enemy sov in deep sovspace, you need to be able to mount an Entosis Link on an Interceptor. Thanks for helping prove my point. Quote: And whats wrong with that? That sounds like active defending to me. If they try to box you in, fight your way out. Every "concern" you have is negated by engaging in a fight, something all these non-sovholders will have us believe is what they are coming here for. Why do you not want that fight you came for? Most "concerns" are due to the ability of N+1 mechanics, when combined with bubbles and instalockers, to ensure that large entities will never be under threat from smaller ones. Since part of the goal is to ensure Fozziesov doesn't degenerate into N+1 again (at least not as easily) we need to make sure that tactics to avoid things like big blobby bubblecampers don't become invulnerable. And that means letting Interceptors use Entosis Links. We Gallente have a saying: "CCP created the Gallente Militia to train the Fighters..."
ISD Decoy ISD Community Communications Liaisons 407	Posted - 2015.03.11 14:23:30 - [1533] - Quote I have removed a post discussing forum moderation. Quote: 12. Discussion of forum moderation is prohibited. The discussion of EVE Online forum moderation actions generally leads to flaming, trolling and baiting of our ISD CCL moderators. As such, this type of discussion is strictly prohibited under the forum rules. If you have questions regarding the actions of a moderator, please file a support ticket under the Community & Forums Category. ISD Decoy Commander Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs) Interstellar Services Department
Dave Stark 7446	Posted - 2015.03.11 14:29:55 - [1534] - Quote Veskrashen wrote: It would probably be a lot more productive if folks started talking about what kind of limiting factors - cap use, fitting requirements, etc - that would force said Interceptors to make "interesting choices" to use them. While, of course, keeping in mind they still need to be able to be used on T1 frigates like Atrons. CCP Fozzie wrote: The Entosis Link itself should have the minimum possible effect on what ships and tactics players can choose. no interesting choices, fozzie wants boring and pointless gameplay to be an option.
Primary This Rifter 4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation 731	Posted - 2015.03.11 14:44:29 - [1535] - Quote How much do you want to bet Friday will pass us by before Fozzie even gets around to engaging us in this discussion or at least giving us details of the mod that he's completely left out? Reminder: CCP thinks you have no right to your alliance logos.
Yroc Jannseen Enlightened Industries Goonswarm Federation 72	Posted - 2015.03.11 14:50:43 - [1536] - Quote Primary This Rifter wrote: How much do you want to bet Friday will pass us by before Fozzie even gets around to engaging us in this discussion or at least giving us details of the mod that he's completely left out? I don't know but it seems the last few posts where I posed that question have disappeared.
Aralyn Cormallen Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation 863	Posted - 2015.03.11 15:05:58 - [1537] - Quote Veskrashen wrote: So what you're saying is that things are already bad enough that folks don't bother to bring anything other than a Ceptor, because they're too easily mobbed. Which, of course, pretty much demonstrates that in order to have any impact on enemy sov in deep sovspace, you need to be able to mount an Entosis Link on an Interceptor. Thanks for helping prove my point. Or that "attackers" are so desperate to avoid expending any cost whatsoever in order to perform harrassment, that the second that a cheap, risk-free option popped up, they were all over it. Quote: we need to make sure that tactics to avoid things like big blobby bubblecampers don't become invulnerable. And that means letting Interceptors use Entosis Links. We need to make sure that tactics to avoid things like cowardly risk-averse troll harrassers don't become invulnerable. And that means dropping the hammer on any ability for the Interceptor to use Entosis Links. See, it works both ways. I'm sorry you don't like bubbles, but they are a fundamental feature of null-sec. When you ask what is the difference between Nullsec and anywhere else, the answer is sov, bombs, and bubbles. Thats it. It is asinine to develop new sovereignty specifically to work around a mechanic that only occurs in that area of space. Its shooting yourself in the head to cure a toothache. Quite frankly, if the only reason for allowing Entosis Links on Interceptors is because CCP think bubbles are a broken mechanic and screw with the new ethos (and I don't think they do, but screw it, lets be theoretical here), just remove bubbles entirely. Then disallow Interceptors, and anything else smaller than a Cruiser, from carrying the Entosis Link. Your "problem" is solved. My "problem" is solved. But if it turns out CCP doesn't think bubbles are the problem, aren't broken, and don't screw with the new ethos, then there really is no arguement for why Interceptors need to keep the ability to use Entosis Links.
Schlampa Kids with Catalysts Clockwork Pineapple 5	Posted - 2015.03.11 15:11:54 - [1538] - Quote You could always make the entosis link consume ozone every cycle.
Borachon GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 38	Posted - 2015.03.11 15:25:02 - [1539] - Quote afkalt wrote: This point is valid almost IRRESPECTIVE of the (subcap) hulls this is mounted on. So this should be concentrated on as a priority and NOT the hulls - we all know how easy it is for a dedicated effort to get behind lines. Your point (I've assumed the numbers are valid) is a huge one and hinges around the entire mechanic and not the ships/modules themselves. I got sick of running these numbers by hand and made a google docs spreadsheet to handle it. It's linked below, so you can make a copy and you can play with the costs of each ping and the cost of the sov structure yourself. Set the cost per ping by hand, and set the cost of the ihub by setting the number of upgrades of each level in it. Results are on the second (Net Cost) sheet. A few examples from running numbers: At 10M isk risked per ping and the defender winning 90% (9 out of 10!) of all ihub reinforces: With an ihub with two L2 upgrades, you would need to win 90% of all ihub pings. With an ihub with two L3 upgrades, you would need to win 95% of all ihub pings. With an ihub with two L4 upgrades, you would need to win 97% of all ihub pings Try it out yourself at https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1XFFmVyn6Ov-paaHjmMuq8OMgfMTMiF2Z3WHyEsRikX8/edit?usp=sharing
Eli Apol Definitely a nullsec alt 359	Posted - 2015.03.11 15:27:00 - [1540] - Quote Borachon wrote: afkalt wrote: This point is valid almost IRRESPECTIVE of the (subcap) hulls this is mounted on. So this should be concentrated on as a priority and NOT the hulls - we all know how easy it is for a dedicated effort to get behind lines. Your point (I've assumed the numbers are valid) is a huge one and hinges around the entire mechanic and not the ships/modules themselves. I got sick of running these numbers by hand and made a google docs spreadsheet to handle it. It's linked below, so you can make a copy and you can play with the costs of each ping and the cost of the sov structure yourself. Set the cost per ping by hand, and set the cost of the ihub by setting the number of upgrades of each level in it. Results are on the second (Net Cost) sheet. A few examples from running numbers: At 10M isk risked per ping and the defender winning 90% (9 out of 10!) of all ihub reinforces: With an ihub with two L2 upgrades, you would need to win 90% of all ihub pings. With an ihub with two L3 upgrades, you would need to win 95% of all ihub pings. With an ihub with two L4 upgrades, you would need to win 97% of all ihub pings Assuming that you don't bother to turn up for the RF timer to save your valuable ihub, this is all true. NB. that's a silly assumption. but what would I know, I'm just a salvager

afkalt Republic Military School Minmatar Republic 924	Posted - 2015.03.11 15:29:01 - [1541] - Quote Aralyn Cormallen wrote: Then disallow Interceptors, and anything else smaller than a Cruiser, from carrying the Entosis Link. Your "problem" is solved. My "problem" is solved. If we're assuming bypassing camps, cruisers fitting it do NOT solve the problem in the slightest. Neither, frankly, do battlecruisers. You can fit a cruiser to a 3 second time to enter warp. They can do up over 5200m/s before links. That's without oversizing the prop mod. You can get a stabber up past 10k no problems with an oversized mod. Point being, they can disengage JUST as easily as an interceptor. The fundamental "problem" is that some people feel the mechanic is broken (I'm on the fence in light of the math post). Sure, people have got some notions on how to control it, but the blunt truth is you CANNOT realistically control it. You can comfortably fit any subcap class to go so fast that anything which can actually realistically catch it will die in a fire. If people have issue with "disengage trolling", there are NO arbitrary ship class limits (subcap) which will stop this.
Borachon GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 38	Posted - 2015.03.11 15:30:23 - [1542] - Quote Eli Apol wrote: Assuming that you don't bother to turn up for the RF timer to save your valuable ihub, this is all true. NB. that's a silly assumption. As I said, I'm assuming you win 90% of the time your ihub is reinforced with these numbers.
afkalt Republic Military School Minmatar Republic 924	Posted - 2015.03.11 15:33:30 - [1543] - Quote Borachon wrote: afkalt wrote: This point is valid almost IRRESPECTIVE of the (subcap) hulls this is mounted on. So this should be concentrated on as a priority and NOT the hulls - we all know how easy it is for a dedicated effort to get behind lines. Your point (I've assumed the numbers are valid) is a huge one and hinges around the entire mechanic and not the ships/modules themselves. I got sick of running these numbers by hand and made a google docs spreadsheet to handle it. It's linked below, so you can make a copy and you can play with the costs of each ping and the cost of the sov structure yourself. Set the cost per ping by hand, and set the cost of the ihub by setting the number of upgrades of each level in it. Results are on the second (Net Cost) sheet. A few examples from running numbers: At 10M isk risked per ping and the defender winning 90% (9 out of 10!) of all ihub reinforces: With an ihub with two L2 upgrades, you would need to win 90% of all ihub pings. With an ihub with two L3 upgrades, you would need to win 95% of all ihub pings. With an ihub with two L4 upgrades, you would need to win 97% of all ihub pings Try it out yourself at https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1XFFmVyn6Ov-paaHjmMuq8OMgfMTMiF2Z3WHyEsRikX8/edit?usp=sharing I believe you, my quoted post was an effort to direct the discussions towards THIS and AWAY from the hulls. Because the hulls basically don't matter a damn. Ban intys, people will use cruisers, ban cruisers and people will use battlecruisers and so it continues. I still am assuming your numbers to be correct and on that assumption there is a fundamental problem here (to my eyes) and it has nothing to do with ship types. I think that one of the easier ways to attack this, is to have the module affect targeting like stabs do (numbers TBH). Bringing people in closer - you can still upship to known snipers and SeBo your arse off, but then you've a heap of other sacrifices on the cards. Thing is, though, that the defence of burning off grid the minute dscan pops is....essentially unassailable.
Eli Apol Definitely a nullsec alt 359	Posted - 2015.03.11 15:34:57 - [1544] - Quote Borachon wrote: Eli Apol wrote: Assuming that you don't bother to turn up for the RF timer to save your valuable ihub, this is all true. NB. that's a silly assumption. As I said, I'm assuming you win 90% of the time your ihub is reinforced with these numbers. But we're talking about a trollceptor fleet being able to compete against a 'proper' fleet that has 2 days to respond and which has a capture speed advantage when the event happens. Which imho is kinda meaningless. Park a single T1 cruiser at each point to hold the trollceptors off whilst you cycle your larger fleet around the other points and there's no reason to not get 100%. Now obviously if the attackers decide to bring MORE than 1 trollceptor to try and do this, then it's no longer a 10m/ping and throws out all the math. but what would I know, I'm just a salvager
Borachon GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 38	Posted - 2015.03.11 15:43:39 - [1545] - Quote Eli Apol wrote: Borachon wrote: Eli Apol wrote: Assuming that you don't bother to turn up for the RF timer to save your valuable ihub, this is all true. NB. that's a silly assumption. As I said, I'm assuming you win 90% of the time your ihub is reinforced with these numbers. But we're talking about a trollceptor fleet being able to compete against a 'proper' fleet that has 2 days to respond and which has a capture speed advantage when the event happens. Which imho is kinda meaningless. Park a single T1 cruiser at each point to hold the trollceptors off whilst you cycle your larger fleet around the other points and there's no reason to not get 100%. Now obviously if the attackers decide to bring MORE than 1 trollceptor to try and do this, then it's no longer a 10m/ping and throws out all the math. Perhaps you're missing my point. The basic idea is to use large numbers of trollceptors to generate the pings at 10m/ping, and then periodically bring a fleet to contest the reinforce event. At 10m/ping and expensive sov structures, you have to win the vast majority of both pings and events for the sov structures to be worth it. If pings were riskier or sov structures cheaper, things are different. to relate this back to the main topic of the thread, CCP could handle some of the trollceptor concerns either by changing the entosis link to make it risker to use or by making sov upgrades cheaper.
afkalt Republic Military School Minmatar Republic 924	Posted - 2015.03.11 15:47:56 - [1546] - Quote Borachon wrote: or by making sov upgrades cheaper. I'd be fully supportive of this. You should want to save them because you're using them and they're GOOD. Not for the sole reason that it's a bastard to replace them.
Eli Apol Definitely a nullsec alt 359	Posted - 2015.03.11 16:09:32 - [1547] - Quote I think it's obtuse statistics though. Firstly 10m/ping? T2 ships have crappy insurance and trollceptors are based around an 80m mod. So we're upto 100m/ping. Then the next issue is how do these trollceptors even stand a chance of winning a ping if there's a locally based defender with a T1 ship in dockup to run a defensive link? There's no reason for that to be anything other than 100% success. Again it's one of those situations where I agree with the conclusion - that the structures are potentially too expensive to be risked against frivolous attack - but disagree with the method of showing it. but what would I know, I'm just a salvager
Yroc Jannseen Enlightened Industries Goonswarm Federation 72	Posted - 2015.03.11 16:12:06 - [1548] - Quote afkalt wrote: Borachon wrote: or by making sov upgrades cheaper. I'd be fully supportive of this. You should want to save them because you're using them and they're GOOD. Not for the sole reason that it's a bastard to replace them. The problem with upgrades isn't just price. A big part of the issue is volume and that issue is compounded by upgrades only being available through NPC sells. Let us build them AND reduce the volume. P4's won't be going into SBU's anyways.

CCP Fozzie C C P C C P Alliance 12350	Posted - 2015.03.11 16:13:23 - [1549] - Quote Hey everyone. I've had time to get completely caught up on the thread now. Thanks to everyone who has made constructive suggestions. There's a lot of good ideas raised in this thread so far. Special thanks to the ISD folks for being heroes as always and keeping the thread relatively clean. We're taking all the feedback into account and putting some work into discussing our options internally and investigating the feasibility of a couple ideas suggested by players so far. I've pulled a couple of quotations from the thread to answer directly and hopefully help clarify a few things. Querns wrote: 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. We do not intend to allow pure evasion tactics to become optimal. If we decide that the concerns expressed by some members of the community about trollcetors are likely to come true, we will take steps to nerf them before release. I want to be clear that the fact we have not announced any new restrictions on the Entosis Link yet isnGÇÖt an indication that we will not make any changes. We are intentionally waiting since initial forum reactions have traditionally been a poor foundation to build balance decisions on. We want to make sure thereGÇÖs enough time for everyone to take a deep breath. Jason Dunham wrote: Perhaps some clarification of how the module functions would answer the questions in this thread. 1. Can the cycle of the entosis be stopped in the middle? If not then you can't just bugger off if someone shows up, you have to stay on grid until the cycle completes. The Entosis Link cannot be stopped partway through the cycle. Once you start the module, you will suffer all the penalties (like being unable to warp or be assisted) until the cycle ends or until your ship explodes, whichever comes first. Jason Dunham wrote: 2. If you are jammed, or damped where you lose lock on the structure, does the entosis module deactivate, allowing you to warp off, or are you kept there until the cycle finishes with no effect? If not, then it would be more risky to activate the module, because like Bastion, Siege, or Triage you are committing to being on that grid until your cycle is done. If you lose lock for any reason, the module stops capturing but continues to run on your ship until the end of the cycle. Losing lock will not allow you to warp early. xttz wrote: Will an active Entosis Link prevent cloaking? Yes, an active Entosis Link would prevent cloaking for the duration of its cycle. ADMlNlSTRATOR wrote: Is it true that using a Entosis Link on a sovereignty structure will NOT display any notifications to the players of the alliance owning the structure unless they are in the system under attack? Because, if so, it would highly disengage players from defending their space rather than engage them to undock and go defend their space. Some big alliances will used their existing IT infrastructure to query the API for such events, but even so, this information will probably be 10 minus late, if even available to normal players (think FC, Directors, CEO only). While there is the question whether you want small scale sovereignty attacks to be dependable with or without FCs, in order to get more people engaged, the attack notifications should be instantaneous and to all players in the alliance owning the structure under attack. The current plan is indeed to have the notifications instantaneously sent to all alliance members. Game Designer \| Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie http://www.twitch.tv/ccp_fozzie/

Borachon GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 39	Posted - 2015.03.11 16:17:44 - [1550] - Quote Eli Apol wrote: I think it's obtuse statistics though. Firstly 10m/ping? T2 ships have crappy insurance and trollceptors are based around an 80m mod. So we're upto 100m/ping. Then the next issue is how do these trollceptors even stand a chance of winning a ping if there's a locally based defender with a T1 ship in dockup to run a defensive link? There's no reason for that to be anything other than 100% success. Again it's one of those situations where I agree with the conclusion - that the structures are potentially too expensive to be risked against frivolous attack - but disagree with the method of showing it. Defenders sometimes make mistakes. I know it's hard to fathom, but occasionally people foul up, so you're simply not going to ever get 100% success. Perhaps the designated defender thought someone else was covering that structure, or they're hit at the end of their primetime when most have gone to sleep, or most of them are out drinking with friends, or they're at Fanfest, or they just can't cover all of the ihubs that are being hit at once. Interceptors are easy to disengage with, particularly on an ihub, because of d-scan. If you lose your 100m isk interceptor on every 10th ping, that's a cost 10m per ping. If you lose it on every 4th ping (Carniflex's number), that 25m per ping. But like I said, play with the numbers yourself. That's why I posted the spreadsheet for you to copy.

afkalt Republic Military School Minmatar Republic 924	Posted - 2015.03.11 16:22:08 - [1551] - Quote @Fozzie any word on the questions in the post of mine on page 1? Quoted for reference afkalt wrote: 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 Add occupancy bonuses in reverse to defenders recapturing - so a fully upgraded object can be recapped by defenders in <2.5 minutes. ed: start the alert at the cycle start, not end. I'm specifically interested in the tackle mechanics around supers/MJDs and synergy with things like bastion/triage.
xttz GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 488	Posted - 2015.03.11 16:28:23 - [1552] - Quote CCP Fozzie wrote: The current plan is indeed to have the notifications instantaneously sent to all alliance members. Is this sent the second the module is activated, or when the capture timer kicks in?
Querns GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 1462	Posted - 2015.03.11 16:31:54 - [1553] - Quote CCP Fozzie wrote: We do not intend to allow pure evasion tactics to become optimal. If we decide that the concerns expressed by some members of the community about trollcetors are likely to come true, we will take steps to nerf them before release. I want to be clear that the fact we have not announced any new restrictions on the Entosis Link yet isnGÇÖt an indication that we will not make any changes. We are intentionally waiting since initial forum reactions have traditionally been a poor foundation to build balance decisions on. We want to make sure thereGÇÖs enough time for everyone to take a deep breath. Fair enough; thanks for the additional consideration in this matter. A somewhat related question; in the most general, unspecific terms, without naming any particular ship or ship ability, is the concept of keeping invaders out of your space, or the ability to catch invaders before they are able to attack your sovereignty structures, something that should be considered a valid defensive option? Or, perhaps to put it more plainly GÇö-áare attackers considered to be entitled to choosing their desired battlefield, or should defenders be allowed to use tactics like gatecamping as a valid defense of their holdings? This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.

CCP Fozzie C C P C C P Alliance 12354	Posted - 2015.03.11 16:38:15 - [1554] - Quote xttz wrote: CCP Fozzie wrote: The current plan is indeed to have the notifications instantaneously sent to all alliance members. Is this sent the second the module is activated, or when the capture timer kicks in? We're currently leaning towards notifying when the capture impact begins, so while the module is in the warmup cycle it would not send a notification. That's open to change as we go forward though. Game Designer \| Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie http://www.twitch.tv/ccp_fozzie/


CCP Fozzie C C P C C P Alliance 12354	Posted - 2015.03.11 16:39:50 - [1555] - Quote Querns wrote: CCP Fozzie wrote: We do not intend to allow pure evasion tactics to become optimal. If we decide that the concerns expressed by some members of the community about trollcetors are likely to come true, we will take steps to nerf them before release. I want to be clear that the fact we have not announced any new restrictions on the Entosis Link yet isnGÇÖt an indication that we will not make any changes. We are intentionally waiting since initial forum reactions have traditionally been a poor foundation to build balance decisions on. We want to make sure thereGÇÖs enough time for everyone to take a deep breath. Fair enough; thanks for the additional consideration in this matter. A somewhat related question; in the most general, unspecific terms, without naming any particular ship or ship ability, is the concept of keeping invaders out of your space, or the ability to catch invaders before they are able to attack your sovereignty structures, something that should be considered a valid defensive option? Or, perhaps to put it more plainly GÇö-áare attackers considered to be entitled to choosing their desired battlefield, or should defenders be allowed to use tactics like gatecamping as a valid defense of their holdings? There's a balance to be found between the two extremes. I think we'd be losing something significant if border control was strong enough to allow people to ignore their interiors. Having some ships move through gatecamps more easily and others less easily is a pretty helpful tool in getting that balance. Game Designer \| Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie http://www.twitch.tv/ccp_fozzie/

Querns GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 1462	Posted - 2015.03.11 16:44:29 - [1556] - Quote CCP Fozzie wrote: There's a balance to be found between the two extremes. I think we'd be losing something significant if border control was strong enough to allow people to ignore their interiors. Having some ships move through gatecamps more easily and others less easily is a pretty helpful tool in getting that balance. Definitely GÇö-áI understand the concerns. I just wanted to keep it fresh in everyone's minds, since it's pretty obvious where I was going with that line of thought. Some serious deliberation on the current state of interdiction nullification is called for, I think; especially in the face of things like covert ops cloaking ships, Black Ops Battleship bridging, titan bridging (as useful as these are with a 5LY range, at any rate,) and wormholes already allowing attackers to circumvent static gate camps. This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
Alli Ginthur The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc 51	Posted - 2015.03.11 16:44:39 - [1557] - Quote CCP Fozzie wrote: Querns wrote: CCP Fozzie wrote: We do not intend to allow pure evasion tactics to become optimal. If we decide that the concerns expressed by some members of the community about trollcetors are likely to come true, we will take steps to nerf them before release. I want to be clear that the fact we have not announced any new restrictions on the Entosis Link yet isnGÇÖt an indication that we will not make any changes. We are intentionally waiting since initial forum reactions have traditionally been a poor foundation to build balance decisions on. We want to make sure thereGÇÖs enough time for everyone to take a deep breath. Fair enough; thanks for the additional consideration in this matter. A somewhat related question; in the most general, unspecific terms, without naming any particular ship or ship ability, is the concept of keeping invaders out of your space, or the ability to catch invaders before they are able to attack your sovereignty structures, something that should be considered a valid defensive option? Or, perhaps to put it more plainly GÇö-áare attackers considered to be entitled to choosing their desired battlefield, or should defenders be allowed to use tactics like gatecamping as a valid defense of their holdings? There's a balance to be found between the two extremes. I think we'd be losing something significant if border control was strong enough to allow people to ignore their interiors. Having some ships move through gatecamps more easily and others less easily is a pretty helpful tool in getting that balance. Would a tweak such as giving hic bubbles the ability to negate the ability to ignore interdiction be a viable option, as that requires people to be actively defending the border, as opposed to deployable bubbles just being drop and forget?

CCP Fozzie C C P C C P Alliance 12354	Posted - 2015.03.11 16:45:45 - [1558] - Quote afkalt wrote: 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. It's definitely something we're considering, but can't promise anything quite yet. afkalt wrote: 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) Warping is blocked by the system literally not allowing the ship with the active Entosis Link to engage warp under any circumstances. It's not a scram or disruptor effect so it's not impacted by stabs or nullification or anything else. It also doesn't have an impact on MWDs or MJDs. If we want to add restrictions on those modules we can, but the actual warp prevention mechanic doesn't affect them. afkalt wrote: >What happens if the ship loses lock If a ship loses lock the module keeps running until the end of the cycle, but is no longer having an impact on the structure. Losing lock does not allow the owner of the Entosis Link to warp. afkalt wrote: >Capital cycle time was discussed to be longer - is the capture time also longer The initial warmup period would be longer, but once an Entosis Link is running past its first cycle, capture speed is the same no matter the cycle time. afkalt wrote: >Will cynoing OUT with an active link be allowed i.e. does this fully "tackle" caps and supers too? No. All jumping will be prevented while the link is active. afkalt wrote: >Are other high slot mods blocked at the time the link is active - bastion/triage/etc/etc Nope. Game Designer \| Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie http://www.twitch.tv/ccp_fozzie/

Eli Apol Definitely a nullsec alt 360	Posted - 2015.03.11 16:52:12 - [1559] - Quote Borachon wrote: Defenders sometimes make mistakes. I know it's hard to fathom, but occasionally people foul up, so you're simply not going to ever get 100% success. Perhaps the designated defender thought someone else was covering that structure, or they're hit at the end of their primetime when most have gone to sleep, or most of them are out drinking with friends, or they're at Fanfest, or they just can't cover all of the ihubs that are being hit at once. So if we're talking purely error statistics then single digit percentages would probably be fair for the initial ping. Fair enough. Borachon wrote: Interceptors are easy to disengage with, particularly on an ihub, because of d-scan. If you lose your 100m isk interceptor on every 10th ping, that's a cost 10m per ping. If you lose it on every 4th ping (Carniflex's number), that 25m per ping. But like I said, play with the numbers yourself. That's why I posted the spreadsheet for you to copy. Yeah 1/10 seems a fair enough guesstimate here for the initial ping and yeah I did copy it and run it with differing figures :) The issue is then assuming that the attackers only turn up with their ceptors for the RF timer AND that the defence is unable to cope with the event with the 2 day advance notice (after only a small percentage of 'mistakes') but what would I know, I'm just a salvager
Harry Saq Blueprint Haus Get Off My Lawn 70	Posted - 2015.03.11 16:53:31 - [1560] - Quote @CCP Fozzie Would it be feasible to have the Entosis module activate an interface as suggested in m prior post here: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5570599#post5570599 All of the balance issues mentioned would be answered if the pilot were fully engaged while running the laser, and it would require teamwork, as multiboxing support ships would also not be ideal or feasible. Harry Saq for CSM X

Philip Ogtaulmolfi Signal Cartel EvE-Scout Enclave 1	Posted - 2015.03.11 16:53:42 - [1561] - Quote John McCreedy wrote: I completely agree. I'm just against saying that players during a certain period of the day can't mine, can't rat, can't do anything other than camp up to three structures in a system in order to prevent a single Interceptor from disrupting the sov. Not exactly. During this 4 hour period you rat, mine or do whatever you like. Then, one of the several alliance members that are in the system jumps to the structure jumps to it, breaks his lock by any available method.,nd carry on with your own business. If he insist, 40 minutes later rinse and repeat. I expect the interceptor will get bored before you.

CCP Fozzie C C P C C P Alliance 12355	Posted - 2015.03.11 16:54:50 - [1562] - Quote Harry Saq wrote: @CCP Fozzie Would it be feasible to have the Entosis module activate an interface as suggested in m prior post here: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5570599#post5570599 All of the balance issues mentioned would be answered if the pilot were fully engaged while running the laser, and it would require teamwork, as multiboxing support ships would also not be ideal or feasible. We'd much rather allow the Entosis Link ship to continue fighting and maneuvering to stay alive while it captures. Game Designer \| Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie http://www.twitch.tv/ccp_fozzie/

MailDeadDrop Archon Industries 386	Posted - 2015.03.11 17:03:30 - [1563] - Quote CCP Fozzie wrote: Harry Saq wrote: @CCP Fozzie Would it be feasible to have the Entosis module activate an interface as suggested in m prior post here: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5570599#post5570599 All of the balance issues mentioned would be answered if the pilot were fully engaged while running the laser, and it would require teamwork, as multiboxing support ships would also not be ideal or feasible. We'd much rather allow the Entosis Link ship to continue fighting and maneuvering to stay alive while it captures. This is at odds with your stated objective that capture be predicated on controlling the field. If one side controls the field, then there is no need for the Entosis Link ship to do anything but run the laser. If the Entosis Link ship needs "to continue fighting and maneuvering to stay alive" then obviously his/her side does not control the field. MDD
Nolak Ataru KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 770	Posted - 2015.03.11 17:04:00 - [1564] - Quote Now if we could get this sort of back-and-forth from you on the ISBoxer thread...
Borachon GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 39	Posted - 2015.03.11 17:06:24 - [1565] - Quote Eli Apol wrote: The issue is then assuming that the attackers only turn up with their ceptors for the RF timer AND that the defence is unable to cope with the event with the 2 day advance notice (after only a small percentage of 'mistakes') The defender does have an advantage, but with scheduled events, there's a significant risk that someone big player shows up with something a modest alliance can't handle. Even so, I'd probably target breaking even when you win 66-75% of ihub reinforces and 90-95% of sov pings. If you remove the frieghter costs from ihubs and upgrades (set freighter/jump freighter cost to 0) and do something to up the chance of losing an interceptor running an entosis link to around 25% (limit them to T1 or small-sized links with short range?), things seem to break even at a reasonable place.
Duffyman Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation 9	Posted - 2015.03.11 17:07:33 - [1566] - Quote Let me start by sayinvv that most of us want sov to be easier to contest. The on ly thing we are requesting is to be able to fight whoever is attaking us. The current design pretty much allows anyone to go in, contest the sov and moonwalk out at will. There are several ideas out there. Restrict by class, make the attacking ship stand still... Just pick one so that we don't spend hours chasing guys who have no interest in having sov at all...
Harry Saq Blueprint Haus Get Off My Lawn 70	Posted - 2015.03.11 17:08:55 - [1567] - Quote CCP Fozzie wrote: Harry Saq wrote: @CCP Fozzie Would it be feasible to have the Entosis module activate an interface as suggested in m prior post here: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5570599#post5570599 All of the balance issues mentioned would be answered if the pilot were fully engaged while running the laser, and it would require teamwork, as multiboxing support ships would also not be ideal or feasible. We'd much rather allow the Entosis Link ship to continue fighting and maneuvering to stay alive while it captures. @CCP FOzzie I ninja edited, can you address the below: "The idea is to avoid any and all punitive modifications, or unnecessary changes to ships AND create something engaging and challenging for the person actually running the link to do. Push Button to activate module and wait is the fundamental design flaw/stagnation to most of eve activities that lead to both boredom and innovative mechanic breaking/bending gameplay, as you have nothing else to do. The aspects of the game that are fun and engaging are when you activate a module and have to monitor various things and make many corrections to avoid an unhappy fate. Such as maintaining optimal, while shield boosting and managing cap all while trying to hold someone down and overheating without burning modules up. While that example is multiple modules, each module requires some level of diligence to employ, and focus cannot be ideally split away from the task at hand. Since the idea of the entosis module is to be used once battlefield supremacy is achieved, the entosis module should require active engaging diligence and action to engage during the entirety of the cycle. If this is achieved we won't be talking about all the workarounds and ninja tactics, as ideally the pilot will be too busy just trying to keep the module on target/calibrated/focused or whatever, and may not even be able to keep track of his immediate surroundings or local intel. Much like the "stay on target" mantra we all hear in our heads when we think of nuking the deathstar, you don't have time for anything else yada yada. This solution avoids punitive corrections, and instead creates something new, exciting, and challenging to do what the punitive corrections would be trying to do anyway, since the real problem is push a button and wait." Harry Saq for CSM X
Freedom Nadd University of Caille Gallente Federation 7	Posted - 2015.03.11 17:14:02 - [1568] - Quote CCP Fozzie wrote: Harry Saq wrote: @CCP Fozzie Would it be feasible to have the Entosis module activate an interface as suggested in m prior post here: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5570599#post5570599 All of the balance issues mentioned would be answered if the pilot were fully engaged while running the laser, and it would require teamwork, as multiboxing support ships would also not be ideal or feasible. We'd much rather allow the Entosis Link ship to continue fighting and maneuvering to stay alive while it captures. Would it be possible to stack defending E-Links to allow a defender who does actually control the field to reverse the timer?
afkalt Republic Military School Minmatar Republic 925	Posted - 2015.03.11 17:24:52 - [1569] - Quote Appreciate the response. I'll edit them into post #2 so it's obvious. Thanks Fozzie. Ed: Turns out there are too many quotes so I just linked it.
John McCreedy Eve Defence Force The Kadeshi 180	Posted - 2015.03.11 17:26:15 - [1570] - Quote CCP Fozzie wrote: ADMlNlSTRATOR wrote: Is it true that using a Entosis Link on a sovereignty structure will NOT display any notifications to the players of the alliance owning the structure unless they are in the system under attack? Because, if so, it would highly disengage players from defending their space rather than engage them to undock and go defend their space. Some big alliances will used their existing IT infrastructure to query the API for such events, but even so, this information will probably be 10 minus late, if even available to normal players (think FC, Directors, CEO only). While there is the question whether you want small scale sovereignty attacks to be dependable with or without FCs, in order to get more people engaged, the attack notifications should be instantaneous and to all players in the alliance owning the structure under attack. The current plan is indeed to have the notifications instantaneously sent to all alliance members. With respect Fozzie, that's not what he asked. You skilfully sidestepped the question. Does it or does it not require members to be in the system under attack? Yes or no? You have also still not clarified whether the module requires one cycle or multiple cycles to achieve what its designed to achieve? Please answer this question because the answer can fundamentally change the discussion. 11 years and counting. Eve Defence Force is recruiting.


CCP Fozzie C C P C C P Alliance 12357	Posted - 2015.03.11 17:30:12 - [1571] - Quote John McCreedy wrote: With respect Fozzie, that's not what he asked. You skilfully sidestepped the question. Does it or does it not require members to be in the system under attack? Yes or no? What part of "all alliance members" isn't clear? You don't need to be in any specific system to receive the notification in our current plan. John McCreedy wrote: You have also still not clarified whether the module requires one cycle or multiple cycles to achieve what its designed to achieve? Please answer this question because the answer can fundamentally change the discussion. When you activate the Entosis Link, it uses one complete cycle to warm up. During that first cycle you are afflicted with all the negative effects of the Link on your own ship, but you do not make any capture progress. Then once that first cycle is complete you begin capturing. Capture time at this point depends on the occupancy defense bonus of the system, but will always take at least 5 minutes (which is two and a half cycles for the T2 module and one for the T1 module). The cycle speed of the module doesn't have any impact on the speed at which the actual capture completes. Game Designer \| Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie http://www.twitch.tv/ccp_fozzie/

Harry Saq Blueprint Haus Get Off My Lawn 70	Posted - 2015.03.11 17:31:22 - [1572] - Quote Harry Saq wrote: CCP Fozzie wrote: Harry Saq wrote: @CCP Fozzie Would it be feasible to have the Entosis module activate an interface as suggested in m prior post here: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5570599#post5570599 All of the balance issues mentioned would be answered if the pilot were fully engaged while running the laser, and it would require teamwork, as multiboxing support ships would also not be ideal or feasible. We'd much rather allow the Entosis Link ship to continue fighting and maneuvering to stay alive while it captures. @CCP FOzzie I ninja edited, can you address the below: "The idea is to avoid any and all punitive modifications, or unnecessary changes to ships AND create something engaging and challenging for the person actually running the link to do. Push Button to activate module and wait is the fundamental design flaw/stagnation to most of eve activities that lead to both boredom and innovative mechanic breaking/bending gameplay, as you have nothing else to do. The aspects of the game that are fun and engaging are when you activate a module and have to monitor various things and make many corrections to avoid an unhappy fate. Such as maintaining optimal, while shield boosting and managing cap all while trying to hold someone down and overheating without burning modules up. While that example is multiple modules, each module requires some level of diligence to employ, and focus cannot be ideally split away from the task at hand. Since the idea of the entosis module is to be used once battlefield supremacy is achieved, the entosis module should require active engaging diligence and action to engage during the entirety of the cycle. If this is achieved we won't be talking about all the workarounds and ninja tactics, as ideally the pilot will be too busy just trying to keep the module on target/calibrated/focused or whatever, and may not even be able to keep track of his immediate surroundings or local intel. Much like the "stay on target" mantra we all hear in our heads when we think of nuking the deathstar, you don't have time for anything else yada yada. This solution avoids punitive corrections, and instead creates something new, exciting, and challenging to do what the punitive corrections would be trying to do anyway, since the real problem is push a button and wait." Here is even further logic, and bringing in the topic that this other dude wants to talk about, ISBoxing. No matter what you do with the entosis link, as long as the base mechanic is push button and wait, you will be able to multiply the activity to as many alts as you care to pay for. If someone had 5 alts it would be very simple to multibox all 5 accounts, find all 5 command things, and activate the entosis module on each. Since the base activity involved requires incredibly little actual interaction, a single player can capture all necessary sov things solely. The troll cepter ships and various other ideas being tossed are leaving out one fundamental factor, it is possible for a single pilot to multibox a whole fleet of them. Multiboxing is a reaction to unengaging game design, in other words, the activity is so easy and lacking in interaction you can scale the task across multiple alts to your hearts content. That is a great identifier for where to focus change, as the only reason it is possible, is because it doesn't meet a threshold of interaction that makes it not possible or worth it. This is also the reason you have people farming mining alts, as mining is also push a button and wait (it has gotten progressively more so with all the "innovations" to the ships that have ever increasingly bigger holds, and simply MORE WAITING). The idea is to focus the activity into a skill or challenge that is consuming enough to require the complete attention of the player. The ship running the module will not be effected, and still maintain it's entire potential for combat, or whatever its primary duties may be, and the activity IS NOT scalable across multiple alts, and would require BOTH battlefield superiority and real teamwork (not imagined teamwork, like lighting cynos). I do not see how this does not meet all of the stated objectives put forth for this module and the mechanic. Harry Saq for CSM X
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 15463	Posted - 2015.03.11 17:34:50 - [1573] - Quote Veskrashen wrote: baltec1 wrote: So what exactly do you find fun about having to deal with attacks on your sov from ships you cant catch for 4 hours every day of every year? Zero fights, zero kills and no fun to be had at all. THIS is what is so bad about the trollcepter, it means wars in the future will be mostly nothing but uncatchable interceptors sapping the willpower of the enemy for months on end. Defenders should actively fight to keep their space but the same needs to apply to the attackers too. I have every confidence in my ability to catch and kill Interceptors with no tank and meager DPS who are unable to warp off grid for 2-5 minutes at a time. Especially on my home turf, where I can bring links and use Snakes far more easily than they can. I understand that a culture where solo / small gang PvP is looked down upon and folks don't bother to log in and play the game unless there's a rage ping to sit on a titan and gank some poor idiot on the other side of the map might not breed the kind of pilots that can handle that kind of challenge, but that's a cultural failing on your part that CCP shouldn't cater to with easy mechanics. In addition, FW is essentially all about defending your sov - or attacking sov - that's vulnerable 23/7 from these kinds of threats. You all will have it far easier than we do - limited window of vulnerability, no need for the defender to work 2x as hard to undo the work of an attacker, no deadspace to worry about, etc etc etc - especially since the attacker can't disengage at will due to the Entosis Link preventing him from warping off. Look, I know you want to build a really high wall to keep all the rampaging hordes out, and thereby avoid having to be active in your space all over rather than just at a few strategic systems. Since that's directly counter to CCP's goal with these sov changes, and since Interceptors are pretty much the only reliable way to ensure you can't pull that kind of tactic off with ease, I think it's fair to say that we can expect Interceptors to be able to use Entosis Links, even (and perhaps especially) the T2 versions. It would probably be a lot more productive if folks started talking about what kind of limiting factors - cap use, fitting requirements, etc - that would force said Interceptors to make "interesting choices" to use them. While, of course, keeping in mind they still need to be able to be used on T1 frigates like Atrons. Everything you said is rubbish. I want small gangs not an endless swarm of cepters that you will not catch with any sniper that a defender would be forced to waste 4 hours of their playtime chasing around. Its not fun, it wont generate fights and it will make sov even worse than it is today. The defender has no advantage at all in this situation and after a few months of this you will see a mass burnout. Its a **** tactic that cannot be allowed to happen. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship**
Harry Saq Blueprint Haus Get Off My Lawn 70	Posted - 2015.03.11 17:37:26 - [1574] - Quote Furthermore, pilots are free to choose between focusing on maintaining the Entosis module, or surviving attacks long enough to flee. The fight or flight is still there, just the objective is not being furthered and can be abandoned while waiting out the cycle. Which also meets your statement "We'd much rather allow the Entosis Link ship to continue fighting and maneuvering to stay alive while it captures." as the ship is not locked down or impinged in any way, SIMPLY the player is otherwise actively engaged, but can choose to fail in order to fight and survive, and by definitions MEETS your BATTLEFIELD SUPERIORITY requirement. Harry Saq for CSM X
Yroc Jannseen Enlightened Industries Goonswarm Federation 72	Posted - 2015.03.11 17:37:47 - [1575] - Quote Fozzie Can you give us any information on the production of these modules? Will you be opening another thread for discussion around the occupancy side IE indices? And also the expense/size of ihubs and the production of their upgrades?
Falin Whalen GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 761	Posted - 2015.03.11 17:38:30 - [1576] - Quote Freedom Nadd wrote: CCP Fozzie wrote: Harry Saq wrote: @CCP Fozzie Would it be feasible to have the Entosis module activate an interface as suggested in m prior post here: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5570599#post5570599 All of the balance issues mentioned would be answered if the pilot were fully engaged while running the laser, and it would require teamwork, as multiboxing support ships would also not be ideal or feasible. We'd much rather allow the Entosis Link ship to continue fighting and maneuvering to stay alive while it captures. Would it be possible to stack defending E-Links to allow a defender who does actually control the field to reverse the timer? No. Then we have another n+1 problem on our hands. While nice in theory, it will only reinforce the current meta of large alliances in large coalitions waiving their supercaps around, and enforcing a "You must be this tall in order to ride the sov train." mentality that is being played out presently. "it's only because of their stupidity that they're able to be so sure of themselves." The Trial - Franz Kafka-á
Valterra Craven 517	Posted - 2015.03.11 17:43:09 - [1577] - Quote MailDeadDrop wrote: CCP Fozzie wrote: Harry Saq wrote: @CCP Fozzie Would it be feasible to have the Entosis module activate an interface as suggested in m prior post here: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5570599#post5570599 All of the balance issues mentioned would be answered if the pilot were fully engaged while running the laser, and it would require teamwork, as multiboxing support ships would also not be ideal or feasible. We'd much rather allow the Entosis Link ship to continue fighting and maneuvering to stay alive while it captures. This is at odds with your stated objective that capture be predicated on controlling the field. If one side controls the field, then there is no need for the Entosis Link ship to do anything but run the laser. If the Entosis Link ship needs "to continue fighting and maneuvering to stay alive" then obviously his/her side does not control the field. MDD Glad someone else caught that too.
Veskrashen Justified Chaos Spaceship Bebop 795	Posted - 2015.03.11 17:48:12 - [1578] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Everything you said is rubbish. Your ignorance and nullbear blinders are showing. baltec1 wrote: I want small gangs not an endless swarm of cepters that you will not catch with any sniper that a defender would be forced to waste 4 hours of their playtime chasing around. Its not fun, it wont generate fights and it will make sov even worse than it is today. The defender has no advantage at all in this situation and after a few months of this you will see a mass burnout. Its a **** tactic that cannot be allowed to happen. If you can't handle solo Interceptors with no tank who can't disengage at will, you're completely blind to the advantages you have as a defender. Try talking to folks who actually have to deal with similar mechanics today - i.e. FW pilots - and you'll get a bazillion ideas on how to leverage the defensive advantages you have. I really really hope that CCP continues to allow Entosis Links on Interceptors. It will result in the biggest buckets of nullbear tears since Pheobe. Querns wrote: CCP Fozzie wrote:** There's a balance to be found between the two extremes. I think we'd be losing something significant if border control was strong enough to allow people to ignore their interiors. Having some ships move through gatecamps more easily and others less easily is a pretty helpful tool in getting that balance. Definitely GÇö I understand the concerns. I just wanted to keep it fresh in everyone's minds, since it's pretty obvious where I was going with that line of thought. Some serious deliberation on the current state of interdiction nullification is called for, I think; especially in the face of things like covert ops cloaking ships, Black Ops Battleship bridging, titan bridging (as useful as these are with a 5LY range, at any rate,) and wormholes already allowing attackers to circumvent static gate camps. Part of the reason it's so important for Interceptors - and other fast aligning interdiction nullified ships - is that mobility within "defended space" is just as important as being able to penetrate the borders in the first place. The reason that we've had 250ish pages plus multiple TMC articles worth of Gewn propoganda railing against Trollceptors is because literally EVERY OTHER SHIP PLATFORM can be interdicted with bubblecamps. This includes both the static wall o' bubbles already common in nullsec, as well as the impromptu camps that get thrown up using 'Dictors and HICs. The fact that a defender can easily "bottle up" a group of BLOPS boats or SBs or folks coming in through a wormhole is precisely the reason that Interceptors need to continue to have the ability to fit Entosis Links without additional penalty over other hulls. We Gallente have a saying: "CCP created the Gallente Militia to train the Fighters..."
Harry Saq Blueprint Haus Get Off My Lawn 70	Posted - 2015.03.11 17:48:38 - [1579] - Quote ...and to illustrate my point even more...when you are doing data sites and relic sites, you are engaged in the mini-game (which is terrible and what I would not advise here, but rather the concept of having an interface that requires your complete attention....AND IS FUN) and can either decide to focus your efforts on furthering your objective or focus on watching local and intel and be diligent about your surroundings at the expense of your objective. The mechanics are already there, and even the precedent. It would only require a mini-game like thing, that maintains the Entosis progress during the cycle. This could be as simple as keeping a randomly moving target in your cross-hairs (I won't waste my time on more imaginative things, if the concept cannot even be agreed upon). Harry Saq for CSM X
Veskrashen Justified Chaos Spaceship Bebop 795	Posted - 2015.03.11 17:52:01 - [1580] - Quote Valterra Craven wrote: MailDeadDrop wrote: CCP Fozzie wrote: Harry Saq wrote: @CCP Fozzie Would it be feasible to have the Entosis module activate an interface as suggested in m prior post here: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5570599#post5570599 All of the balance issues mentioned would be answered if the pilot were fully engaged while running the laser, and it would require teamwork, as multiboxing support ships would also not be ideal or feasible. We'd much rather allow the Entosis Link ship to continue fighting and maneuvering to stay alive while it captures. This is at odds with your stated objective that capture be predicated on controlling the field. If one side controls the field, then there is no need for the Entosis Link ship to do anything but run the laser. If the Entosis Link ship needs "to continue fighting and maneuvering to stay alive" then obviously his/her side does not control the field. MDD Glad someone else caught that too. Actually it's all about not gimping the Entosis Link boat while it's trying to gain dominance of the field. If you're stuck head down in a minigame, you're easy prey for defenders. In short, it's a bad idea, and you should feel bad for proposing it. Astute individuals will also note that every single suggestion being put forward so far is about how to make the ships using Entosis Links slower, easier to catch in bubbles, otherwise remove their mobility, or otherwise put them at a combat disadvantage. In short, every single critique is about how to make it easier for the defender to get rid of an attacker quickly so they can go back to playing DOTA on the other screen. It's frankly more than a bit ridiculous. We Gallente have a saying: "CCP created the Gallente Militia to train the Fighters..."

Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 673	Posted - 2015.03.11 17:53:36 - [1581] - Quote Veskrashen wrote: Try talking to folks who actually have to deal with similar mechanics today - i.e. FW pilots - and you'll get a bazillion ideas on how to leverage the defensive advantages you have. fyi fw folks can catch interceptors because acceleration gates don't allow you to warp in at range everyone gets dumped into the same spot on the destination grid when i was a more destitute gbs i used to abuse this fact to keep myself safe when running DED plexes also because there is no gate cloak, the interceptor doesn't get to eat the first server tick decloaking, an RSB'd coked out frigate can easily snag the interceptor then none of these things happen in nullsec
Philip Ogtaulmolfi Signal Cartel EvE-Scout Enclave 1	Posted - 2015.03.11 18:02:44 - [1582] - Quote Princess Cherista wrote: PotatoOverdose wrote: Anyone that can be assed to defend their space will succeed. WELL DONE, FULL MARKS SHERLOCK. But who wants to chase interceptors around for 4 hours a night or whatever the primetime is for no fight and no kills. Do you?? You dont. You do whatever you are doing and when the ceptor appears, you let it work for 38 minutes with it's link and then you log a character in the system, an alt, call a mate that is doing industry or go back to your home system, break the lock of the ceptor and go back to your business. If he is particularly dedicated he can do this 6 times in the window and your alliance will nedd around 12 minutes/man to negate him. Who will get bored before?
Veskrashen Justified Chaos Spaceship Bebop 796	Posted - 2015.03.11 18:03:47 - [1583] - Quote Promiscuous Female wrote: fyi fw folks can catch interceptors because acceleration gates don't allow you to warp in at range everyone gets dumped into the same spot on the destination grid when i was a more destitute gbs i used to abuse this fact to keep myself safe when running DED plexes also because there is no gate cloak, the interceptor doesn't get to eat the first server tick decloaking, an RSB'd coked out frigate can easily snag the interceptor then none of these things happen in nullsec 1. We run them down and catch them on the open field just as easily. 2. Combat probes mean you can get pretty damn close on demand - which isn't a mechanic we can abuse in FW due to deadspace. Look, in lowsec we don't have the luxury of bubbles. We generally can't control who docks in the systems we live in. We have zero control over local and zero control over who wanders in and out of our space. So, we've never gotten lazy enough to depend on big masses of bubbles for passive defense. We've never had big fleets of supercaps that ensured our assets were never at risk. We never pretended to control movement in our home regions. So, since we can't reasonably keep them out, and can't reasonably keep them from moving around, we simply choose to focus on how best to murder them in the face when they choose to mess with something we care about. I suppose that gives me a different approach than nullbears who are much more used to passive security. We Gallente have a saying: "CCP created the Gallente Militia to train the Fighters..."
Aralyn Cormallen Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation 864	Posted - 2015.03.11 18:06:53 - [1584] - Quote Veskrashen wrote: The fact that a defender can easily "bottle up" a group of BLOPS boats or SBs or folks coming in through a wormhole is precisely the reason... You've still yet to explain how this does not constitute an active defence. If I've chased you, and trapped you, I have done my job. Now fight or die.
Alavaria Fera GoonWaffe 6617	Posted - 2015.03.11 18:09:58 - [1585] - Quote Just safe up and cloak. Pretend it is a mass afk cloak op. ^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears. Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 15465	Posted - 2015.03.11 18:12:19 - [1586] - Quote Veskrashen wrote: Your ignorance and nullbear blinders are showing. Your utter lack of sov war experience is more telling. Veskrashen wrote: If you can't handle solo Interceptors with no tank who can't disengage at will, you're completely blind to the advantages you have as a defender. How much fun are you going to have with chasing shadows for years with no reward? You keep on making the assumption the only way to avoid people is by warping, intercepters don't need to warp to avoid getting shot at, they just outrun everything. Veskrashen wrote: Try talking to folks who actually have to deal with similar mechanics today - i.e. FW pilots - and you'll get a bazillion ideas on how to leverage the defensive advantages you have. This is nothing like FW and the groups that take part in sov wars are nothing like those in FW. Veskrashen wrote: I really really hope that CCP continues to allow Entosis Links on Interceptors. It will result in the biggest buckets of nullbear tears since Pheobe. This is why people with zero experience with sov warfare should not be in this thread. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 15465	Posted - 2015.03.11 18:15:25 - [1587] - Quote Philip Ogtaulmolfi wrote: Princess Cherista wrote: PotatoOverdose wrote: Anyone that can be assed to defend their space will succeed. WELL DONE, FULL MARKS SHERLOCK. But who wants to chase interceptors around for 4 hours a night or whatever the primetime is for no fight and no kills. Do you?? You dont. You do whatever you are doing and when the ceptor appears, you let it work for 38 minutes with it's link and then you log a character in the system, an alt, call a mate that is doing industry or go back to your home system, break the lock of the ceptor and go back to your business. If he is particularly dedicated he can do this 6 times in the window and your alliance will nedd around 12 minutes/man to negate him. Who will get bored before? Most systems wont even take 20 min to knock over. Also the fact that the only answer you have involves no fights and no kills shows just how horrible it will be countering swarms of these things for 4 hours a day every day for year after year. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
Harry Saq Blueprint Haus Get Off My Lawn 70	Posted - 2015.03.11 18:15:38 - [1588] - Quote Veskrashen wrote: Valterra Craven wrote: MailDeadDrop wrote: CCP Fozzie wrote: Harry Saq wrote: @CCP Fozzie Would it be feasible to have the Entosis module activate an interface as suggested in m prior post here: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5570599#post5570599 All of the balance issues mentioned would be answered if the pilot were fully engaged while running the laser, and it would require teamwork, as multiboxing support ships would also not be ideal or feasible. We'd much rather allow the Entosis Link ship to continue fighting and maneuvering to stay alive while it captures. This is at odds with your stated objective that capture be predicated on controlling the field. If one side controls the field, then there is no need for the Entosis Link ship to do anything but run the laser. If the Entosis Link ship needs "to continue fighting and maneuvering to stay alive" then obviously his/her side does not control the field. MDD Glad someone else caught that too. Actually it's all about not gimping the Entosis Link boat while it's trying to gain dominance of the field. If you're stuck head down in a minigame, you're easy prey for defenders. In short, it's a bad idea, and you should feel bad for proposing it. Astute individuals will also note that every single suggestion being put forward so far is about how to make the ships using Entosis Links slower, easier to catch in bubbles, otherwise remove their mobility, or otherwise put them at a combat disadvantage. In short, every single critique is about how to make it easier for the defender to get rid of an attacker quickly so they can go back to playing DOTA on the other screen. It's frankly more than a bit ridiculous. My suggestion does not do any of what you are saying, in fact the entosis fit ship is completely unnaffected and is free to fight off whomever, play DOTA or facebook, all at the expense of achieving the objective. As stated, the design objective stated by CCP of the Entosis links are directly as follows: As much as possible, the Entosis Link capture progress should reflect which group has effective military control of the grid. The optimal strategy for fighting over a location with the Entosis Link should be to gain effective control of the grid. The Entosis Link itself should have the minimum possible effect on what ships and tactics players can choose. The restrictions and penalties on the Entosis Link should be as simple and understandable as possible. Simply being engaged while running the module achieves everything above, AND CAN ACTUALLY BE FUN if done correctly. Nothing about being engaged while running the module affects any of the tactics involved in gaining control of the grid, or even getting there, it just means someone running it actually (GOD FORBID) has something interesting to do while it cycles, and can voluntarily suck and be inefficient at it in order to STAY ALIVE or respond to a change in battlefield conditions. Harry Saq for CSM X
Alavaria Fera GoonWaffe 6617	Posted - 2015.03.11 18:16:31 - [1589] - Quote No fights and no kills. Ah this is great content we got here. ^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears. Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
The Mittani GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 8286	Posted - 2015.03.11 18:16:50 - [1590] - Quote Thanks for the detailed feedback this early into the process, Fozzie. I'm glad you guys are opting for alliance-wide notifications (unlike role-based ones for pos alerts) so line members can go find content/defensive ops on their own without waiting for the directorates to notify people what's going on - given how quick a non-indexed system can be hacked, any other kind of notification system wouldn't really work for the defender. ~hi~

Nolak Ataru KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 770	Posted - 2015.03.11 18:18:03 - [1591] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Veskrashen wrote: I really really hope that CCP continues to allow Entosis Links on Interceptors. It will result in the biggest buckets of nullbear tears since Pheobe. This is why people with zero experience with sov warfare should not be in this thread. Cripes, I really am agreeing with baltec1. Someone must've spiked my coffee..... Though I wish that CCP would implement this for everything....
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 674	Posted - 2015.03.11 18:18:18 - [1592] - Quote Veskrashen wrote: 1. We run them down and catch them on the open field just as easily. 2. Combat probes mean you can get pretty damn close on demand - which isn't a mechanic we can abuse in FW due to deadspace. Look, in lowsec we don't have the luxury of bubbles. We generally can't control who docks in the systems we live in. We have zero control over local and zero control over who wanders in and out of our space. So, we've never gotten lazy enough to depend on big masses of bubbles for passive defense. We've never had big fleets of supercaps that ensured our assets were never at risk. We never pretended to control movement in our home regions. So, since we can't reasonably keep them out, and can't reasonably keep them from moving around, we simply choose to focus on how best to murder them in the face when they choose to mess with something we care about. I suppose that gives me a different approach than nullbears who are much more used to passive security. woe be to the yoke of lowsec where you can evac your fw beacon orbiting frigates at will with a neutral character that is the sum of your assets that are "at risk" because lowsec does not allow you to actually deploy personal assets like ihubs and outposts nor does it allow you to be meaningfully locked out of any station (hint: black frog exists) note that i am leaving pos out of this because we have more lowsec pos than you also you're putting a lot of action into unguarded anchorable bubbles, whose only ability is to moderately slow down anyone stupid enough to fly an un-nullified ship into hostile territory keeping people out of your space implies that there is something of yours worth guarding against which to deny access, which does not describe lowsec at all trying to then ascribe the qualities of that sort of space to a section of space which is completely different is facile af
Alavaria Fera GoonWaffe 6617	Posted - 2015.03.11 18:18:35 - [1593] - Quote Basically, it's because everyone, like massadeath, sees themselves as being a potential attacker while people with sov, like evil blobbing coalitions, won't have a choice in being the defender Thus it is important to ensure the attacker gets as much as possible out of the entosis link mechanic. otherwise how will moa end our 0.0 nightmare ^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears. Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
Aralyn Cormallen Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation 865	Posted - 2015.03.11 18:20:25 - [1594] - Quote Veskrashen wrote: 1. We run them down and catch them on the open field just as easily. 2. Combat probes mean you can get pretty damn close on demand - which isn't a mechanic we can abuse in FW due to deadspace. Look, in lowsec we don't have the luxury of bubbles. We generally can't control who docks in the systems we live in. We have zero control over local and zero control over who wanders in and out of our space. So, we've never gotten lazy enough to depend on big masses of bubbles for passive defense. We've never had big fleets of supercaps that ensured our assets were never at risk. We never pretended to control movement in our home regions. So, since we can't reasonably keep them out, and can't reasonably keep them from moving around, we simply choose to focus on how best to murder them in the face when they choose to mess with something we care about. I suppose that gives me a different approach than nullbears who are much more used to passive security. Because FW players have never whined about stabbed gunless frigates, or people cloaking in plexs, and certainly never complained about the terrifying spectre of invisible recons lurking in every plex. Wait, is this what this is about? Are you mad at us over being happy with the Recon change?
Veskrashen Justified Chaos Spaceship Bebop 801	Posted - 2015.03.11 18:23:37 - [1595] - Quote Aralyn Cormallen wrote: Veskrashen wrote: The fact that a defender can easily "bottle up" a group of BLOPS boats or SBs or folks coming in through a wormhole is precisely the reason... You've still yet to explain how this does not constitute an active defence. If I've chased you, and trapped you, I have done my job. Now fight or die. It does constitute and active defense. Again, noone's contesting that. We're simply saying that it lends itself to an N+1 solution, which isn't good when considered within the stated goals of Fozziesov. You need a mechanic for smaller groups, who will always be outnumbered by their targets, to effectively harass and contest sov. And that means, barring any other option, Interceptors. We Gallente have a saying: "CCP created the Gallente Militia to train the Fighters..."
Yroc Jannseen Enlightened Industries Goonswarm Federation 72	Posted - 2015.03.11 18:24:17 - [1596] - Quote Veskrashen wrote: So, we've never gotten lazy enough to depend on big masses of bubbles for passive defense. We've never had big fleets of supercaps that ensured our assets were never at risk. We never pretended to control movement in our home regions. So, since we can't reasonably keep them out, and can't reasonably keep them from moving around, we simply choose to focus on how best to murder them in the face when they choose to mess with something we care about. I suppose that gives me a different approach than nullbears who are much more used to passive security. Any asset in a low sec station is never "at risk"
Eli Apol Definitely a nullsec alt 360	Posted - 2015.03.11 18:24:50 - [1597] - Quote baltec1 wrote: This is why people with zero experience with sov warfare should not be in this thread. Supercap owners only? Like the porche club but more exclusive. but what would I know, I'm just a salvager
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 674	Posted - 2015.03.11 18:25:59 - [1598] - Quote Eli Apol wrote: baltec1 wrote: This is why people with zero experience with sov warfare should not be in this thread. Supercap owners only? you can contest sov without using supercaps in the current system we do it with torpedo bombers and ishtars all the time it just really sucks
Syrias Bizniz Chaotic Tranquility Warp to Cyno. 398	Posted - 2015.03.11 18:26:11 - [1599] - Quote The Answer to everything: **** Sov, just let your stations get into freeport mode and enjoy the brawl. All you gotta do is keep the entosis running for 4 hours then, while slaughtering everything that isn't you and your blues.
Veskrashen Justified Chaos Spaceship Bebop 802	Posted - 2015.03.11 18:31:26 - [1600] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Your utter lack of sov war experience is more telling. Experience grinding masses of EHP has no relevance in Fozziesov, experience with timer based capture mechanics does. The current way of doing things is going to be completely undone in June, barring something extraordinary. And, just in case you're confused, FW is the Occupancy Sov basis that this current Fozziesov has grown from. baltec1 wrote: How much fun are you going to have with chasing shadows for years with no reward? You keep on making the assumption the only way to avoid people is by warping, intercepters don't need to warp to avoid getting shot at, they just outrun everything. False. Interceptors without links / implants won't outrun Interceptors with them, much less faster ships like oversized props and the like. Not to mention the fact that there's several counters that don't require me to be anywhere near catching it - within 60-100km or so is more than sufficient. Again, your lack of knowledge of combat outside of Megathrons is showing. Also, it would be easy for a rich coalition - like yours - to offer bounties on killmails during your Prime Time in your space where the victim has an Entosis Link fitted. Since CCP isn't going to incentivize you with isk to do the job, perhaps it's time for Gewns vaunted logisitcal organization to jump in and fix that problem on their own. You know, those player solutions to problems that CCP Fozzie mentioned. baltec1 wrote: This is nothing like FW and the groups that take part in sov wars are nothing like those in FW. You're right. FW corps have no issue fighting for their space day in and day out. Nullbears who have grown lazy behind shields of bubblewalls and supercaps on the other hand... baltec1 wrote: Veskrashen wrote: I really really hope that CCP continues to allow Entosis Links on Interceptors. It will result in the biggest buckets of nullbear tears since Pheobe. This is why people with zero experience with sov warfare should not be in this thread. Your tears are going to be so delicious. We Gallente have a saying: "CCP created the Gallente Militia to train the Fighters..."

Soldarius Kosher Nostra The 99 Percent 1174	Posted - 2015.03.11 18:33:50 - [1601] - Quote @CCP Fozzie, thank you for addressing some the the mechanical questions regarding the Entosis Links and how they will interact with ships and sov. Let me summarize and we can see if I have it right. Attacker A shows up on grid with a sov structure. He locks it, and then activates Entosis link, assuming he is inside the optimal rang of the module. The ship is now subject to the negative effects listed in post one for the duration of the Link's cycle time or until the ship is destroyed, whichever comes first. After the first cycle is completed, and thus a second cycle begins, capture of the sov structure will begin. The amount of time required depends on sov indices. If for any reason you lose lock on the sov object, capture will cease. The Entosis Link module will complete its cycle. This is exactly what I was expecting. If your ship loses lock while an offensive active module is cycling (weapons, EWAR, etc), those modules will do exactly the same thing. Most people simply don't notice because the cycle time is so short. What I wasn't expecting is for the Entosis module to disallow cloaking. I can't say I'm disappointed. Now this begs another question: If I am in the process of capturing a sov structure I lose lock and then reestablish lock before the module cycle time is completed, will capture recommence immediately or do I have to wait to start a new cycle on my Entosis Link? http://youtu.be/YVkUvmDQ3HY
Veskrashen Justified Chaos Spaceship Bebop 802	Posted - 2015.03.11 18:35:08 - [1602] - Quote Aralyn Cormallen wrote: Because FW players have never whined about stabbed gunless frigates, or people cloaking in plexs, and certainly never complained about the terrifying spectre of invisible recons lurking in every plex. Wait, is this what this is about? Are you mad at us over being happy with the Recon change? A search of my post history would reveal that my response to those who whined about stabbed frigates was generally a) fit more scrams and b) a stabbed cloaky plexing alt will never keep me from taking a plex I want to have. In other words, something similar to what I'm telling you all: HTFU and go fix the damn problem instead of whining for CCP to make it easy for you. Also, I don't care about the Recon change, I think it's kind of cool actually. Most of the time we end up killing the Recon who thinks he's being clever. But again, we tend to just find ways to murder people in the face in spite of the mechanical disadvantages, rather than whining to CCP to make it easy for us. Cultural differences I suppose. We Gallente have a saying: "CCP created the Gallente Militia to train the Fighters..."
Veskrashen Justified Chaos Spaceship Bebop 802	Posted - 2015.03.11 18:38:24 - [1603] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Veskrashen wrote: And that means, barring any other option, Interceptors. Cov-ops, t3, cyno, fighting your way in. Lots of options that would lead to fights without breaking the game. Nullified Interceptors aren't breaking the game now, won't be when they get sovlazors as well. The fact that you all don't want to deal with it - i.e. it might ruin your game - doesn't mean it's game breaking on an EVE-wide scale. We Gallente have a saying: "CCP created the Gallente Militia to train the Fighters..."
Kristian Hackett Alpha Republic - Transcenders of Space and Time Solyaris Chtonium 39	Posted - 2015.03.11 18:39:35 - [1604] - Quote Personally, I'm all for the Trollceptors. Null needs to be shaken up, and it's hilarious to see all the tears over how trolls are going to destroy everything and destroy morale and wah wah wah. There's an answer for everything in this game, people just need to start thinking outside of the box to find it. Want to stop an interceptor that's currently running an Entosis Link on your structure? Here's some options: 1) Halt the capture progress by applying your own Entosis Link. 2) Hit the Interceptor with a Remote Sensor Dampener II. Who cares how fast he's going if he can't lock outside of 10km. 3) Utilize Acolyte EV-300, Warrior SW-300 and Hobgoblin SD-300 drones to trip up the Interceptor. 4) Use a sniper loaded with tracking scripts and boosted by Remote Tracking Computer IIs loaded with tracking scripts. 5) Use Missiles and Target Painters. 6) Use a combination of all of the above. If that's still too much for you, then you don't deserve the system. Aircraft Maintenance - Using a high school diploma to fix what a college degree just f**ed up. "Life is too short to drink cheap beer."*
Veskrashen Justified Chaos Spaceship Bebop 802	Posted - 2015.03.11 18:40:43 - [1605] - Quote Soldarius wrote: Now this begs another question: If I am in the process of capturing a sov structure I lose lock and then reestablish lock before the module cycle time is completed, will capture recommence immediately or do I have to wait to start a new cycle on my Entosis Link? And more importantly, if capture is halted after lock is reestablished but before the cycle ends, do you have to spend a full cycle re-connecting / re-calibrating / whatever before the timer starts ticking again? We Gallente have a saying: "CCP created the Gallente Militia to train the Fighters..."
Veskrashen Justified Chaos Spaceship Bebop 802	Posted - 2015.03.11 18:44:33 - [1606] - Quote Promiscuous Female wrote: woe be to the yoke of lowsec where you can evac your fw beacon orbiting frigates at will with a neutral character that is the sum of your assets that are "at risk" because lowsec does not allow you to actually deploy personal assets like ihubs and outposts nor does it allow you to be meaningfully locked out of any station (hint: black frog exists) Since under Fozziesov you'll have 48 hours of Freeport, and since Black Frog exists, and since A+B = you can evac any assets you have should something go wrong... ... does that mean that noone in nullsec will have any assets at risk under Fozziesov? Hmm.... We Gallente have a saying: "CCP created the Gallente Militia to train the Fighters..."
FT Diomedes The Graduates Forged of Fire 864	Posted - 2015.03.11 18:46:33 - [1607] - Quote Concord should give ISK rewards to defenders who successfully defend a capture node. I can attack the node with my neutral alt. I can then orbit my own structures and save them. Repeat this for four hours a day and not worry about what else I could be doing with my life. Then the parallel with FW will be complete. The Greatest Ship Ever. Credit to Shahfluffers.
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 15465	Posted - 2015.03.11 18:46:51 - [1608] - Quote Veskrashen wrote: Experience grinding masses of EHP has no relevance in Fozziesov, experience with timer based capture mechanics does. The current way of doing things is going to be completely undone in June, barring something extraordinary. And, just in case you're confused, FW is the Occupancy Sov basis that this current Fozziesov has grown from. [/quote] Fun fact, most wars we have fought were won before we grinded out most of the structures. Killing structures is soul destroying but at least there is a KM in the end. Veskrashen wrote: False. Interceptors without links / implants won't outrun Interceptors with them, much less faster ships like oversized props and the like. Not to mention the fact that there's several counters that don't require me to be anywhere near catching it - within 60-100km or so is more than sufficient. Again, your lack of knowledge of combat outside of Megathrons is showing. What makes you think the attackers wont be bringing their own implants and boosters? Also, by the time you warp to an interceptor it will be out of range of your 100km range ship, by the time you lock it it will be out of range of your 150km sniper. You don't catch interceptors with sniperboats. Veskrashen wrote: Also, it would be easy for a rich coalition - like yours - to offer bounties on killmails during your Prime Time in your space where the victim has an Entosis Link fitted. Since CCP isn't going to incentivize you with isk to do the job, perhaps it's time for Gewns vaunted logisitcal organization to jump in and fix that problem on their own. You know, those player solutions to problems that CCP Fozzie mentioned. Bounties that will rarely if ever get paid out because you wont be getting KM. Veskrashen wrote: You're right. FW corps have no issue fighting for their space day in and day out. Nullbears who have grown lazy behind shields of bubblewalls and supercaps on the other hand... When was the last time you got rapecaged for a week in FW and then lost a few trillion in assets? Veskrashen wrote: Your tears are going to be so delicious. And here we see another example of a misuse of that phrase. It is not tears to point out a fundamental flaw in a new sov system that people would abuse. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
Soldarius Kosher Nostra The 99 Percent 1174	Posted - 2015.03.11 18:47:37 - [1609] - Quote Kristian Hackett wrote: Personally, I'm all for the Trollceptors. Null needs to be shaken up, and it's hilarious to see all the tears over how trolls are going to destroy everything and destroy morale and wah wah wah. There's an answer for everything in this game, people just need to start thinking outside of the box to find it. Want to stop an interceptor that's currently running an Entosis Link on your structure? Here's some options: 1) Halt the capture progress by applying your own Entosis Link. 2) Hit the Interceptor with a Remote Sensor Dampener II. Who cares how fast he's going if he can't lock outside of 10km. 3) Utilize Acolyte EV-300, Warrior SW-300 and Hobgoblin SD-300 drones to trip up the Interceptor. 4) Use a sniper loaded with tracking scripts and boosted by Remote Tracking Computer IIs loaded with tracking scripts. 5) Use Missiles and Target Painters. 6) Use a combination of all of the above. If that's still too much for you, then you don't deserve the system. 1) Would work. 2) Would work if he does not want to fight. (Pretty likely.) 3) Do you have any idea how bad those drones are? Most of them can't even catch up to an interceptor, let alone effect it in any meaningful way. 4) At range, this could work. 5) Interceptors have little issue outrunning missiles, especially at long range. 6) Not worth responding to. http://youtu.be/YVkUvmDQ3HY
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 15465	Posted - 2015.03.11 18:48:39 - [1610] - Quote Veskrashen wrote: Nullified Interceptors aren't breaking the game now, We arn't talking about now, we a talking about when the new sov lands. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship

Kristian Hackett Alpha Republic - Transcenders of Space and Time Solyaris Chtonium 39	Posted - 2015.03.11 18:53:23 - [1611] - Quote Soldarius wrote: Kristian Hackett wrote: Personally, I'm all for the Trollceptors. Null needs to be shaken up, and it's hilarious to see all the tears over how trolls are going to destroy everything and destroy morale and wah wah wah. There's an answer for everything in this game, people just need to start thinking outside of the box to find it. Want to stop an interceptor that's currently running an Entosis Link on your structure? Here's some options: 1) Halt the capture progress by applying your own Entosis Link. 2) Hit the Interceptor with a Remote Sensor Dampener II. Who cares how fast he's going if he can't lock outside of 10km. 3) Utilize Acolyte EV-300, Warrior SW-300 and Hobgoblin SD-300 drones to trip up the Interceptor. 4) Use a sniper loaded with tracking scripts and boosted by Remote Tracking Computer IIs loaded with tracking scripts. 5) Use Missiles and Target Painters. 6) Use a combination of all of the above. If that's still too much for you, then you don't deserve the system. 1) Would work. 2) Would work if he does not want to fight. (Pretty likely.) 3) Do you have any idea how bad those drones are? Most of them can't even catch up to an interceptor, let alone effect it in any meaningful way. 4) At range, this could work. 5) Interceptors have little issue outrunning missiles, especially at long range. 6) Not worth responding to. In repsonse: 3) Well, looks like we've just ID'd another area that could use some rebalancing. 5) Most likely, yea, the damage won't even scratch his shields unless you can trip him up with a web. Use in conjunction with a webifier (Cruors would be great for this with the Webifier bonus). 6) Hey look! Combo 1, 2 & 4 to kick some ass! Aircraft Maintenance - Using a high school diploma to fix what a college degree just f**ed up. "Life is too short to drink cheap beer."*
Alavaria Fera GoonWaffe 6617	Posted - 2015.03.11 18:54:04 - [1612] - Quote Promiscuous Female wrote: Eli Apol wrote: baltec1 wrote: This is why people with zero experience with sov warfare should not be in this thread. Supercap owners only? you can contest sov without using supercaps in the current system we do it with torpedo bombers and ishtars all the time it just really sucks It's easier after the sov structure ehp nerf Ask northernassociates. ^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears. Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 15465	Posted - 2015.03.11 19:03:08 - [1613] - Quote PotatoOverdose wrote: And this one's a case of "lol didn't read." Please tell me, how does a ceptor "moonwalk out" if it can't warp away and faster ships can run it down? They don't run down cepters now and wont in the future. Every single one of your plans revolvs around the assumption the cepter is joust going to let you warp to 0 on it, not more or not run when something shows up. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
PotatoOverdose Royal Black Watch Highlanders DARKNESS. 2655	Posted - 2015.03.11 19:04:21 - [1614] - Quote baltec1 wrote: PotatoOverdose wrote: And this one's a case of "lol didn't read." Please tell me, how does a ceptor "moonwalk out" if it can't warp away and faster ships can run it down? They don't run down cepters now and wont in the future. Every single one of your plans revolvs around the assumption the cepter is joust going to let you warp to 0 on it, not more or not run when something shows up. A max speed garmur or dramiel is faster than any ceptor under equivalent conditions. Fact.
Alavaria Fera GoonWaffe 6617	Posted - 2015.03.11 19:05:24 - [1615] - Quote No I'm pretty sure they already know how it will work. They want to do it to us, so they have to hide this by pretending the pilots are much stupider at piloting the sovtrollship than they themselves are. ^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears. Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 15465	Posted - 2015.03.11 19:06:10 - [1616] - Quote PotatoOverdose wrote: A max speed garmur or dramiel is faster than any ceptor under equivalent conditions. Fact. It has a 110km head start, it starts burning the second it sees you on its D-scan, it will be 200km away at the very least when you meet it. No, you won't catch it. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
Eli Apol Definitely a nullsec alt 360	Posted - 2015.03.11 19:07:00 - [1617] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Eli Apol wrote: baltec1 wrote: So how do you plan to grab said trollcepter with a web when it is both faster than you by a large margin and has range on you? When defending your own structure one would presume a cloaked ship could tell you which of your preprepared bookmarks would be a suitable warp in to allow for the current momentum of the target. So, its not going to happen because what you just described would never work. Because you say so? Or because a ship moving at constant velocity in pretty much a circle isn't covered by trigonometric functions? Sure it'll take some skill in converting warp time versus arc of the target and the inty pilot has some chance to change direction once the ship is within 14AU but sniper ships also have a fairly large range to account for a little fuzziness in accuracy. but what would I know, I'm just a salvager
PotatoOverdose Royal Black Watch Highlanders DARKNESS. 2655	Posted - 2015.03.11 19:08:54 - [1618] - Quote baltec1 wrote: PotatoOverdose wrote: A max speed garmur or dramiel is faster than any ceptor under equivalent conditions. Fact. It has a 110km head start, it starts burning the second it sees you on its D-scan, it will be 200km away at the very least when you meet it. No, you won't catch it. Show me how fast this 110km locking interceptor goes with all of it's rigs dedicated to lock range. Grasping at straws baltec, grasping at straws. It's quite hilarious, actually.
Alavaria Fera GoonWaffe 6617	Posted - 2015.03.11 19:12:18 - [1619] - Quote Look, quit teaching them howto use their trollceptors when the sov lasers come out, tia ^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears. Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 15465	Posted - 2015.03.11 19:17:35 - [1620] - Quote PotatoOverdose wrote: Show me how fast this 110km locking interceptor goes with all of it's rigs dedicated to lock range. Grasping at straws baltec, grasping at straws. It's quite hilarious, actually. Telling you how it is. All of your plans require the cepter to either not be moving or be AFK. Neither of these will happen. Get off EFT and get some in game experience wih chasing down interceptors before you try to say these things and you wont be getting caught out every time. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship

Alavaria Fera GoonWaffe 6617	Posted - 2015.03.11 19:18:49 - [1621] - Quote They're basically going through all of their worries and getting you to teach them how to not die horribly. So they're now even more prepared to sov laser when it inevitably gets put into the game pretty much as it is. EDIT: You/we/whoever even efted for them exactly what fit to use, too... earlier in this thread or the other one ^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears. Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
Rowells ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans 2131	Posted - 2015.03.11 19:18:57 - [1622] - Quote Ok, gonna bring this up again. What will the impact of NPC Alts using the Elink be? Can they destroy the hubs/TCUs? Can they 'capture' or Freeport a station? Also, how do you plan on differentiating the countdown timers associated with station services? Will they have reinforce or just repair immediately?
Kristian Hackett Alpha Republic - Transcenders of Space and Time Solyaris Chtonium 39	Posted - 2015.03.11 19:24:01 - [1623] - Quote Just because trollceptors are fast doesn't mean they can't be caught with some skillful flying. You're going to lose the speed race if you don't work to get ahead of them. For example, these ships when flown properly can catch an interceptor. [Cruor, Speed] (4,169 m/s, cap stable 41.8%, Lv. 5 no implants) Overdrive Injector System II Overdrive Injector System II Overdrive Injector System II Overdrive Injector System II 1MN Microwarpdrive II Stasis Webifier II Warp Disruptor II Small Nosferatu II Small Nosferatu II Small Nosferatu II Small Nosferatu II Small Auxiliary Thrusters II Small Dynamic Fuel Valve II Small Engine Thermal Shielding II [Garmur, Speed] (5,189 m/s, cap 3m 45s, Lv. 5 no implants) Overdrive Injector System II Overdrive Injector System II Overdrive Injector System II 1MN Microwarpdrive II Stasis Webifier II Warp Disruptor II Warp Scrambler II Light Missile Launcher II, Scourge Precision Light Missile Light Missile Launcher II, Scourge Precision Light Missile Light Missile Launcher II, Scourge Precision Light Missile Small Auxiliary Thrusters II Small Dynamic Fuel Valve II Small Engine Thermal Shielding II Aircraft Maintenance - Using a high school diploma to fix what a college degree just f**ed up. "Life is too short to drink cheap beer."*
Veskrashen Justified Chaos Spaceship Bebop 802	Posted - 2015.03.11 19:24:52 - [1624] - Quote baltec1 wrote: PotatoOverdose wrote: Show me how fast this 110km locking interceptor goes with all of it's rigs dedicated to lock range. Grasping at straws baltec, grasping at straws. It's quite hilarious, actually. Telling you how it is. All of your plans require the cepter to either not be moving or be AFK. Neither of these will happen. Get off EFT and get some in game experience wih chasing down interceptors before you try to say these things and you wont be getting caught out every time. Actually neither of us assume any such thing. We in fact assume that the ceptor will be awake and moving, probably at max velocity. We also assume he'll try to overheat to burn off once we arrive on grid. And yet, having chased linked kitey fokkers for what feels like forever, we're absolutely confident in our ability to catch them even under those conditions - because he can't warp away at will. Perhaps, my friend, you don't actually know "how it is". We Gallente have a saying: "CCP created the Gallente Militia to train the Fighters..."
Veskrashen Justified Chaos Spaceship Bebop 802	Posted - 2015.03.11 19:27:37 - [1625] - Quote Rowells wrote: Ok, gonna bring this up again. What will the impact of NPC Alts using the Elink be? Can they destroy the hubs/TCUs? Can they 'capture' or Freeport a station? Also, how do you plan on differentiating the countdown timers associated with station services? Will they have reinforce or just repair immediately? This is actually an excellent question that deserves some thought by CCP. I'd guess they can probably nuke a TCU or iHub, since those would require someone to anchor a replacement - which you won't be able to do in an NPC corp. Capping a Freeport station...? That'd be a weird situation. One really trolltastic idea would be to simply have it remain "Freeported" until somone comes along to RF and cap it again. Normal Entosis Link rules would apply - characters in the same NPC corp would be able to defend it, everyone else would be an attacker. We Gallente have a saying: "CCP created the Gallente Militia to train the Fighters..."
Kristian Hackett Alpha Republic - Transcenders of Space and Time Solyaris Chtonium 42	Posted - 2015.03.11 19:28:34 - [1626] - Quote PotatoOverdose wrote: A max speed garmur or dramiel is faster than any max speed ceptor under equivalent conditions. Fact. If you can't warp, you're dead. Actually, a Stiletto can just barely outrun a Garmur, but that's by less than 100 m/s assuming both ships are focusing on maximizing speed over everything else using T2 modules. Aircraft Maintenance - Using a high school diploma to fix what a college degree just f**ed up. "Life is too short to drink cheap beer."*
Jenn aSide Smokin Aces. 10160	Posted - 2015.03.11 19:29:26 - [1627] - Quote As is usual, getting caught up in minor details has obscured the big picture for everyone. Even if you restrict these things to cruisers and up you end up with the situation where THE GROUPS WITH MORE PEOPLE can overload on the groups with fewer. Even if you don't come back to contest the constellation beacons/whatever, you have a situation that is LESS freidnly to the 'smaller groups' than the one that exists right now. aka Dominion Redux. The base 'goal' of changing the politics of null and 'making the larger groups contract' is the base of the stupidity that keeps happening. CCP is basically trying to short circuit human nature and it's not going to work. And I'm not kidding, this discussion was the exact same before dominion, with people (like goons) telling everyone "we will use this to make your game experience suck" and legions of short-sighted utopians on the other side proclaiming "this will be great, those big alliances are gonna get what's coming to them!!". It's all really stupid.
Kristian Hackett Alpha Republic - Transcenders of Space and Time Solyaris Chtonium 42	Posted - 2015.03.11 19:31:42 - [1628] - Quote baltec1 wrote: PotatoOverdose wrote: Show me how fast this 110km locking interceptor goes with all of it's rigs dedicated to lock range. Grasping at straws baltec, grasping at straws. It's quite hilarious, actually. Telling you how it is. All of your plans require the cepter to either not be moving or be AFK. Neither of these will happen. Get off EFT and get some in game experience wih chasing down interceptors before you try to say these things and you wont be getting caught out every time. He has a point baltec. If the ceptor is focusing on speed instead of range, sure it can maintain outrunning, but all i have to do is keep it more than 40km off the structure and I win, and that's freakin easy to do with sensor damps. If he's damped up, he needs to move in close, and if he moves in close he's tackled, and if he stays at range there's nothing he can do with the modules. Troll nullified and frustrated. Aircraft Maintenance - Using a high school diploma to fix what a college degree just f**ed up. "Life is too short to drink cheap beer."*
PotatoOverdose Royal Black Watch Highlanders DARKNESS. 2655	Posted - 2015.03.11 19:33:10 - [1629] - Quote Kristian Hackett wrote: PotatoOverdose wrote: A max speed garmur or dramiel is faster than any max speed ceptor under equivalent conditions. Fact. If you can't warp, you're dead. Actually, a Stiletto can just barely outrun a Garmur, but that's by less than 100 m/s assuming both ships are focusing on maximizing speed over everything else using T2 modules. Fair point, but the stiletto won't be max speed fit anyway since it needs that patented "trollceptor" lock range of 110km. And the max speed dram will win by a mile against a "trollceptor" fit. But I expect Baltec to come back and say: No! That's not true because I said it's not true!
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 677	Posted - 2015.03.11 19:34:07 - [1630] - Quote Eli Apol wrote: baltec1 wrote: Eli Apol wrote: baltec1 wrote: So how do you plan to grab said trollcepter with a web when it is both faster than you by a large margin and has range on you? When defending your own structure one would presume a cloaked ship could tell you which of your preprepared bookmarks would be a suitable warp in to allow for the current momentum of the target. So, its not going to happen because what you just described would never work. Because you say so? Or because a ship moving at constant velocity in pretty much a circle isn't covered by trigonometric functions? Sure it'll take some skill in converting warp time versus arc of the target and the inty pilot has some chance to change direction once the ship is within 14AU but sniper ships also have a fairly large range to account for a little fuzziness in accuracy. lmbo ah yes let me whip out my ti-89 so i can contest sov also at what point in this entire thread was the interceptor orbiting like an idiot instead of pressing Keep At Range set to 999999km to make the ship fly in the most optimal path in the direction of Away without having to think

Kristian Hackett Alpha Republic - Transcenders of Space and Time Solyaris Chtonium 42	Posted - 2015.03.11 19:34:52 - [1631] - Quote Jenn aSide wrote: As is usual, getting caught up in minor details has obscured the big picture for everyone. Even if you restrict these things to cruisers and up you end up with the situation where THE GROUPS WITH MORE PEOPLE can overload on the groups with fewer. Even if you don't come back to contest the constellation beacons/whatever, you have a situation that is LESS freidnly to the 'smaller groups' than the one that exists right now. aka Dominion Redux. The base 'goal' of changing the politics of null and 'making the larger groups contract' is the base of the stupidity that keeps happening. CCP is basically trying to short circuit human nature and it's not going to work. And I'm not kidding, this discussion was the exact same before dominion, with people (like goons) telling everyone "we will use this to make your game experience suck" and legions of short-sighted utopians on the other side proclaiming "this will be great, those big alliances are gonna get what's coming to them!!". It's all really stupid. I think the point here is that the big fights are still going to be N+1, but the total escalation time will be shorter. Instead of monster 23 hour battles, you're looking at a much smaller fight that is better distributed over multiple nodes. Yea I can see how people think the mechanics here are going to suck, but I'd prefer a quicker capture time over 12 hours in 10% TiDi. Aircraft Maintenance - Using a high school diploma to fix what a college degree just f**ed up. "Life is too short to drink cheap beer."*
Mike Azariah The Scope Gallente Federation 2625	Posted - 2015.03.11 19:39:50 - [1632] - Quote Promiscuous Female wrote: technically an ishtar fleet doesn't require its members to push F1 because drone assist still exists You're welcome m Mike Azariah Gö¼GöÇGöÇGö¼n++ ¯\|(pâä)/¯
Eli Apol Definitely a nullsec alt 360	Posted - 2015.03.11 19:39:57 - [1633] - Quote Promiscuous Female wrote: Eli Apol wrote: baltec1 wrote: Eli Apol wrote: baltec1 wrote: So how do you plan to grab said trollcepter with a web when it is both faster than you by a large margin and has range on you? When defending your own structure one would presume a cloaked ship could tell you which of your preprepared bookmarks would be a suitable warp in to allow for the current momentum of the target. So, its not going to happen because what you just described would never work. Because you say so? Or because a ship moving at constant velocity in pretty much a circle isn't covered by trigonometric functions? Sure it'll take some skill in converting warp time versus arc of the target and the inty pilot has some chance to change direction once the ship is within 14AU but sniper ships also have a fairly large range to account for a little fuzziness in accuracy. lmbo ah yes let me whip out my ti-89 so i can contest sov also at what point in this entire thread was the interceptor orbiting like an idiot instead of pressing Keep At Range set to 999999km to make the ship fly in the most optimal path in the direction of Away without having to think Just because mathematics proves something doesn't mean you need to do the math step by step to predict it. A ball's trajectory through the air is subject to mathematical principles yet you don't need a calculator to catch it. Also pressing keep at range makes you incredibly predictable, who's to say an experienced player won't use that to warp in at a BM 300 km away in the direction they predict you to move? And of course we're assuming this afk-orbitting lolceptor pilot is actually pressing d-scan every second anyways. Also I believe it's pretty easy to fit up a 10mn Tac Dessie which does double the speed of the ceptor before implants and boosts and will be able to close a distance of 100km in a fraction of the 2 minute cycle. (20s) Or ya know, they're uncatchable, grrr ceptors. but what would I know, I'm just a salvager
Kensai Aubaris The Legion of Spoon Curatores Veritatis Alliance 1	Posted - 2015.03.11 19:50:14 - [1634] - Quote The issue of whether trollceptors can be countered misses the point for me (off course they can, with some effort). What I'm worried about is a fleet of 50 of the things coming in and rf'ing every sov structure across two constellations over the course of an hour or two. That of course is also counterable but only at the cost of ruining your Eve experience during the 4 hour prime time window because you're running everywhere playing whack-a-mole rather than doing something enjoyable. So, to add to the gazillion ideas out there, here's mine: Entosis link is not binary on/off, but rather has a required strength that scales with the level of the system. A bit like warp core points, but applied at the system level. A back-of-beyond system that no one ever uses should be able to be taken by a single T1 frigate. But should that same T1 frigate be able to take a highly developed hub/staging system? Surely the TCU/IHUB would be expected to stand up better to an attack. If each sov structure had a number of 'Entosis points' that needed to be applied, and if different sizes of Entotsis modules applied different numbers of points, then a number of these issues would take care of themselves, and good sov holiding behavior would be incented. A theoretical example: 1. System A has very low usage, isn't actively 'owned'. Sov structures have a base Entosis strength of 1. Any ship capable of fitting an Entosis module can come in and rf the structures. Serves the sov holders right, because they weren't actively using the system. 2. System B is a highly developed staging system with a lot of sov owner activity. The sov structures have a maxed out Entosis strength of 10. If an attacker wants to rf a structure they either bring 10 frigates and apply them all to the structure, or they bring one 'XL' Entotsis link module (say it needs to be a Battlecruiser hull to fit it). Now an attacker needs to commit to an attack. In this model the 50 trollceptor fleet can still come in, but only systems with low sov indices are actually vulnerable - better developed systems will require a significant part of the attacking fleet to commit. Sov owners are incented to improve their space since it will make it less vulnerable to the random troll fleets. Looking forward to the explanations on why the idea is completely misguided.
Eli Apol Definitely a nullsec alt 360	Posted - 2015.03.11 19:52:46 - [1635] - Quote 50 ceptors x 80m mods x 0.5 loot drop rate = 2 billion isk. Sounds like a profitable 4 hours. but what would I know, I'm just a salvager
Kristian Hackett Alpha Republic - Transcenders of Space and Time Solyaris Chtonium 42	Posted - 2015.03.11 19:55:41 - [1636] - Quote Why everyone is so convinced they need to catch the Interceptor is beyond me. Just Sensor Damp it. It's going to be orbiting at max range in order to get the Entosis Link to cycle through, all you need to do is keep at your max sensor damp range inside of the interceptor's orbit (essentially you place yourself between the structure and the station). Long story short - I can use a Vexor Navy Issue, camp it on the structure, Sensor Damp the Interceptor and run my own Entosis Link to recapture the structure and the troll can't do anything about it because I just ** blocked him. Again, problem solved, troll frustrated. Aircraft Maintenance - Using a high school diploma to fix what a college degree just fed up. "Life is too short to drink cheap beer."*
Kristian Hackett Alpha Republic - Transcenders of Space and Time Solyaris Chtonium 42	Posted - 2015.03.11 19:58:43 - [1637] - Quote Kensai Aubaris wrote: The issue of whether trollceptors can be countered misses the point for me (off course they can, with some effort). What I'm worried about is a fleet of 50 of the things coming in and rf'ing every sov structure across two constellations over the course of an hour or two. That of course is also counterable but only at the cost of ruining your Eve experience during the 4 hour prime time window because you're running everywhere playing whack-a-mole rather than doing something enjoyable. So, to add to the gazillion ideas out there, here's mine: Entosis link is not binary on/off, but rather has a required strength that scales with the level of the system. A bit like warp core points, but applied at the system level. A back-of-beyond system that no one ever uses should be able to be taken by a single T1 frigate. But should that same T1 frigate be able to take a highly developed hub/staging system? Surely the TCU/IHUB would be expected to stand up better to an attack. If each sov structure had a number of 'Entosis points' that needed to be applied, and if different sizes of Entotsis modules applied different numbers of points, then a number of these issues would take care of themselves, and good sov holiding behavior would be incented. A theoretical example: 1. System A has very low usage, isn't actively 'owned'. Sov structures have a base Entosis strength of 1. Any ship capable of fitting an Entosis module can come in and rf the structures. Serves the sov holders right, because they weren't actively using the system. 2. System B is a highly developed staging system with a lot of sov owner activity. The sov structures have a maxed out Entosis strength of 10. If an attacker wants to rf a structure they either bring 10 frigates and apply them all to the structure, or they bring one 'XL' Entotsis link module (say it needs to be a Battlecruiser hull to fit it). Now an attacker needs to commit to an attack. In this model the 50 trollceptor fleet can still come in, but only systems with low sov indices are actually vulnerable - better developed systems will require a significant part of the attacking fleet to commit. Sov owners are incented to improve their space since it will make it less vulnerable to the random troll fleets. Looking forward to the explanations on why the idea is completely misguided. Points still turns this into a long drawn out N+1 fight. By focusing on maintaining complete control of the grid and only needing 1 Entosis Link, you scale down the fight and (much to CCP's delight) you don't have a system bouncing right into 10% TiDi. Aircraft Maintenance - Using a high school diploma to fix what a college degree just f**ed up. "Life is too short to drink cheap beer."*
xttz GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 492	Posted - 2015.03.11 19:58:47 - [1638] - Quote The common litmus test when it comes to balance is to ask if something can only reliably be stopped by something else doing exactly the same job. For example, the original design for Dominion supercaps was unbalanced because past a certain critical mass, the only counter to them was more supercaps. When you argue that the counter to a very fast ship is to have more of a very slightly faster ship, it produces the same result. It really doesn't matter the slightest bit if a single Interceptor can potentially be caught by some specialist fit faction ship. When an attacker is able to dictate both the time and location of an encounter, a defender has fewer options to react. When an attacker can coordinate scores or hundreds of ships across a wide area, during which a defender has to not only react quickly but react with at least an equal number of specialised ships, that's broken. Remember that the underlying goal here is for people to live in their space to own it. What some of you are arguing is that the majority of null-sec players need to live in their space and constantly be within 5mins of swapping to a specialist-fit faction ship to own it. The barrier of entry for null-sec just shifts from Supercaps to faction ships.
xttz GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 492	Posted - 2015.03.11 20:00:47 - [1639] - Quote Kristian Hackett wrote: Why everyone is so convinced they need to catch the Interceptor is beyond me. The goal of the troll is to force a reaction and get out alive. They don't expect to capture anything, if they do it's a bonus. If the only viable counter is ECM the attacker is risking nothing and this violates the underlying risk versus reward aspect of EVE.
Eli Apol Definitely a nullsec alt 360	Posted - 2015.03.11 20:01:43 - [1640] - Quote xttz wrote: The common litmus test when it comes to balance is to ask if something can only reliably be stopped by something else doing exactly the same job. For example, the original design for Dominion supercaps was unbalanced because past a certain critical mass, the only counter to them was more supercaps. When you argue that the counter to a very fast ship is to have more of a very slightly faster ship, it produces the same result. T3 dessies aren't nullified. So it's not stopped by something else doing exactly the same job. Also it's completely countered by 2 types of EWAR forcing them to either move in closer or bring different ships. Other than that +1 would read again. but what would I know, I'm just a salvager

Veskrashen Justified Chaos Spaceship Bebop 802	Posted - 2015.03.11 20:04:42 - [1641] - Quote Kensai Aubaris wrote: The issue of whether trollceptors can be countered misses the point for me (off course they can, with some effort). What I'm worried about is a fleet of 50 of the things coming in and rf'ing every sov structure across two constellations over the course of an hour or two. That of course is also counterable but only at the cost of ruining your Eve experience during the 4 hour prime time window because you're running everywhere playing whack-a-mole rather than doing something enjoyable. Aside from forcing you to be mobile and counter folks in multiple locations at the same time, how is this any different than any other attack on your sov? If PL decided to go knock around CVA instead of HERO, and decided to see how many hubs they could RF in Supers, you'd still be running around for hours trying to save your home. We Gallente have a saying: "CCP created the Gallente Militia to train the Fighters..."
xttz GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 492	Posted - 2015.03.11 20:05:35 - [1642] - Quote What amazes me is how few people grasp the simple concept of the metagame and how basic game mechanics play into it. I'm finally starting to realise why we own most of the map.
Kristian Hackett Alpha Republic - Transcenders of Space and Time Solyaris Chtonium 42	Posted - 2015.03.11 20:05:58 - [1643] - Quote xttz wrote: The common litmus test when it comes to balance is to ask if something can only reliably be stopped by something else doing exactly the same job. For example, the original design for Dominion supercaps was unbalanced because past a certain critical mass, the only counter to them was more supercaps. When you argue that the counter to a very fast ship is to have more of a very slightly faster ship, it produces the same result. It really doesn't matter the slightest bit if a single Interceptor can potentially be caught by some specialist fit faction ship. When an attacker is able to dictate both the time and location of an encounter, a defender has fewer options to react. When an attacker can coordinate scores or hundreds of ships across a wide area, during which a defender has to not only react quickly but react with at least an equal number of specialised ships, that's broken. Remember that the underlying goal here is for people to live in their space to own it. What some of you are arguing is that the majority of null-sec players need to live in their space and constantly be within 5mins of swapping to a specialist-fit faction ship to own it. The barrier of entry for null-sec just shifts from Supercaps to faction ships. Then what needs to happen is the amount of time to take a structure within a system needs to have modifiers depending on what other structures are in the system. For example, if an IHUB is active in the system, it should take 3x-5x as long to capture a station before the IHUB. That way it forces the attackers to either bring an overwhelming force, or it provides a nice single defense point for the system and makes IHUB investment all the more worthwhile. Make it so that capturing a system requires that you capture structures in a certain order for optimal time. Aircraft Maintenance - Using a high school diploma to fix what a college degree just f**ed up. "Life is too short to drink cheap beer."*
Veskrashen Justified Chaos Spaceship Bebop 802	Posted - 2015.03.11 20:06:06 - [1644] - Quote Kristian Hackett wrote: Why everyone is so convinced they need to catch the Interceptor is beyond me. Just Sensor Damp it. It's going to be orbiting at max range in order to get the Entosis Link to cycle through, all you need to do is keep at your max sensor damp range inside of the interceptor's orbit (essentially you place yourself between the structure and the station). Long story short - I can use a Vexor Navy Issue, camp it on the structure, Sensor Damp the Interceptor and run my own Entosis Link to recapture the structure and the troll can't do anything about it because I just **** blocked him. Again, problem solved, troll frustrated. Because anything less than killing the Trollceptor allows the Trollceptor to go sovlaser something else, and is therefore not a solution to the problem according to Gewns. Not that it really matters, since you only get Trolled if you're unwilling to defend your stuff in the first place. We Gallente have a saying: "CCP created the Gallente Militia to train the Fighters..."
Veskrashen Justified Chaos Spaceship Bebop 802	Posted - 2015.03.11 20:06:58 - [1645] - Quote xttz wrote: What amazes me is how few people grasp the simple concept of the metagame and how basic game mechanics play into it. I'm finally starting to realise why we own most of the map. No, we fully get that TMC and the Gewn Trollposting Hordes are tools of the metagame to shape the future battlefield. Thanks though. We Gallente have a saying: "CCP created the Gallente Militia to train the Fighters..."
Jenn aSide Smokin Aces. 10162	Posted - 2015.03.11 20:08:16 - [1646] - Quote xttz wrote: The common litmus test when it comes to balance is to ask if something can only reliably be stopped by something else doing exactly the same job. For example, the original design for Dominion supercaps was unbalanced because past a certain critical mass, the only counter to them was more supercaps. When you argue that the counter to a very fast ship is to have more of a very slightly faster ship, it produces the same result. It really doesn't matter the slightest bit if a single Interceptor can potentially be caught by some specialist fit faction ship. When an attacker is able to dictate both the time and location of an encounter, a defender has fewer options to react. When an attacker can coordinate scores or hundreds of ships across a wide area, during which a defender has to not only react quickly but react with at least an equal number of specialised ships, that's broken. Remember that the underlying goal here is for people to live in their space to own it. What some of you are arguing is that the majority of null-sec players need to live in their space and constantly be within 5mins of swapping to a specialist-fit faction ship to own it. The barrier of entry for null-sec just shifts from Supercaps to faction ships. Jenn aSide is stockpiling Dramiel and Daredevil BPCs as we speak But yea, this kind of thing happens because people are too short-sighted to see it coming. The most obvious counter to the troll captor is a destroyer with a tank and it's own link. Thing is you will need a whole mess of them, and BIG alliances will use Entosis fleets to tie down allies while a real fleet (capable of on grid superiority) reinforces everything another nearby alliance holds. rince and repeat till the BLUE donut is a GOON donut lol. The military has a saying: "No plan survives contact with the enemy". Well, no game mechanic survives contact with EVE players. The more convoluted and complicated (even if it sounds 'reasonable') the plan, the more it's just going to invoke Malcanis' Law. That doesn't mean "don't make plans" it means "make plans with a pessimistic rather than optimistic eye, because Goons actually exist".
Kristian Hackett Alpha Republic - Transcenders of Space and Time Solyaris Chtonium 42	Posted - 2015.03.11 20:08:17 - [1647] - Quote xttz wrote: Kristian Hackett wrote: Why everyone is so convinced they need to catch the Interceptor is beyond me. The goal of the troll is to force a reaction and get out alive. They don't expect to capture anything, if they do it's a bonus. If the only viable counter is ECM the attacker is risking nothing and this violates the underlying risk versus reward aspect of EVE. Yea that's understandable, but if the sole reaction is a single ECM ship telling the troll to ** off every time, the troll is going to get bored. Seriously, it'd get to the point of: Defender: Back again for another round, Troll? Troll: Yep. Still trying to get a rise out of you guys. D: Not happening, all we need is just me to counter you. You're not worth our time. T: ... Thanks for the blow to my ego. D: Any time. Now kindly GTFO. Aircraft Maintenance - Using a high school diploma to fix what a college degree just fed up. "Life is too short to drink cheap beer."*
GeeShizzle MacCloud 547	Posted - 2015.03.11 20:09:21 - [1648] - 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)
Eli Apol Definitely a nullsec alt 360	Posted - 2015.03.11 20:11:01 - [1649] - Quote It amazes me how people can say one thing: xttz wrote: The common litmus test when it comes to balance is to ask if something can only reliably be stopped by something else doing exactly the same job. and then completely contradict themselves in their next post: xttz wrote: If the only viable counter is ECM which isn't the only counter by the way, since you already seemed to admit: xttz wrote: It really doesn't matter the slightest bit if a single Interceptor can potentially be caught by some specialist fit faction ship And also neglected to mention the T3 dessie which is probably a stronger counter than a faction ship anyways... and of course ANY OTHER SHIP sat at 0 running a defensive link. but what would I know, I'm just a salvager
Jenn aSide Smokin Aces. 10162	Posted - 2015.03.11 20:12:45 - [1650] - Quote Kristian Hackett wrote: xttz wrote: Kristian Hackett wrote: Why everyone is so convinced they need to catch the Interceptor is beyond me. The goal of the troll is to force a reaction and get out alive. They don't expect to capture anything, if they do it's a bonus. If the only viable counter is ECM the attacker is risking nothing and this violates the underlying risk versus reward aspect of EVE. Yea that's understandable, but if the sole reaction is a single ECM ship telling the troll to **** off every time, the troll is going to get bored. Seriously, it'd get to the point of: Defender: Back again for another round, Troll? Troll: Yep. Still trying to get a rise out of you guys. D: Not happening, all we need is just me to counter you. You're not worth our time. T: ... Thanks for the blow to my ego. D: Any time. Now kindly GTFO. If the person like to troll, the people 'anti-trolling' him will get tired 1st. This entosis link is going to be a griefing tool that makes shooting SBUs (to generate a lot of notices) look like child's play.

Veskrashen Justified Chaos Spaceship Bebop 802	Posted - 2015.03.11 20:13:39 - [1651] - Quote Kristian Hackett wrote: xttz wrote: Kristian Hackett wrote: Why everyone is so convinced they need to catch the Interceptor is beyond me. The goal of the troll is to force a reaction and get out alive. They don't expect to capture anything, if they do it's a bonus. If the only viable counter is ECM the attacker is risking nothing and this violates the underlying risk versus reward aspect of EVE. Yea that's understandable, but if the sole reaction is a single ECM ship telling the troll to **** off every time, the troll is going to get bored. Not to mention that, depending on how the link capture mechanic works when you regain lock mid-cycle and whether you have to "reconnect" or not for a cycle after regaining lock, you could potentially defend all the objectives in an entire system with 1 Griffin. Which means that it's entirely possible that Trollceptors could be easily countered simply by being active in the space you hold, and be willing to drop an ECM mod into a mid slot when needed. Not exactly a huge burden. We Gallente have a saying: "CCP created the Gallente Militia to train the Fighters..."
Kristian Hackett Alpha Republic - Transcenders of Space and Time Solyaris Chtonium 42	Posted - 2015.03.11 20:13:49 - [1652] - Quote Eli Apol wrote: and of course ANY OTHER SHIP sat at 0 running a defensive link. You still need to stop the troll's link to reverse the capture... So any other ship is not quite a viable option here. Aircraft Maintenance - Using a high school diploma to fix what a college degree just f**ed up. "Life is too short to drink cheap beer."*
Freedom Nadd University of Caille Gallente Federation 7	Posted - 2015.03.11 20:18:02 - [1653] - Quote Falin Whalen wrote: Freedom Nadd wrote: CCP Fozzie wrote: Harry Saq wrote: @CCP Fozzie Would it be feasible to have the Entosis module activate an interface as suggested in m prior post here: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5570599#post5570599 All of the balance issues mentioned would be answered if the pilot were fully engaged while running the laser, and it would require teamwork, as multiboxing support ships would also not be ideal or feasible. We'd much rather allow the Entosis Link ship to continue fighting and maneuvering to stay alive while it captures. Would it be possible to stack defending E-Links to allow a defender who does actually control the field to reverse the timer? No. Then we have another n+1 problem on our hands. While nice in theory, it will only reinforce the current meta of large alliances in large coalitions waiving their supercaps around, and enforcing a "You must be this tall in order to ride the sov train." mentality that is being played out presently. Which would lead to meaningful content and allow those who dominate the grid to control the FozzieSov(tm) fight. As for SupersOnline, with the upcoming FozzieNerfs(tm) to supers as damage dealers and the CarrierCaust(tm), well at least they would have a function. For 4 hours every day. edit : Only defensive links would stack, offensive links remain as planned
Eli Apol Definitely a nullsec alt 361	Posted - 2015.03.11 20:19:30 - [1654] - Quote Kristian Hackett wrote: Eli Apol wrote: and of course ANY OTHER SHIP sat at 0 running a defensive link. You still need to stop the troll's link to reverse the capture... So any other ship is not quite a viable option here. Semantics wise you've stopped the capture and can do it with an afk cruiser that can perma tank about 80dps so have countered their intentions...but yeah a midslot sensor damp or ECM satisfies your point as well :) but what would I know, I'm just a salvager
Veskrashen Justified Chaos Spaceship Bebop 803	Posted - 2015.03.11 20:19:54 - [1655] - Quote Kristian Hackett wrote: Eli Apol wrote: and of course ANY OTHER SHIP sat at 0 running a defensive link. You still need to stop the troll's link to reverse the capture... So any other ship is not quite a viable option here. According to Gewns, the Trollceptor simply buggers off to harass another structure, so not really any issue there. If you get on grid and link up, you win under that scenario. Otherwise, just make sure you have DLAs and SeBos to sick your drones on them and you're good. We Gallente have a saying: "CCP created the Gallente Militia to train the Fighters..."
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 678	Posted - 2015.03.11 20:21:49 - [1656] - Quote Mike Azariah wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: technically an ishtar fleet doesn't require its members to push F1 because drone assist still exists You're welcome m uh we want drone assist to be completely removed you may notice that we from time to time lower ourselves into using the fotm this is primarily because us using the fotm is unacceptable to ccp and causes it to be nerfed, which is the primary objective see: aoe doomsday titans remote cyno doomsdays use of carriers/supercarriers as hauling vehicles par excellence drakes tracking titans doomsdays being shot at subcaps unlimited drone assist and probably some more that xttz or other older goons know, i wasn't actually playing for half of these
Veskrashen Justified Chaos Spaceship Bebop 803	Posted - 2015.03.11 20:22:43 - [1657] - Quote Freedom Nadd wrote: Which would lead to meaningful content and allow those who dominate the grid to control the FozzieSov(tm) fight. edit : Only defensive links would stack, offensive links remain as planned Which means you don't actually have to control the grid, you simply need to be able to bring more guys than the other side, i.e. N+1. Which is what this mechanic is supposed to avoid. If you can "win" by putting a dozen more ships on grid than the other guy and never actually interact in any way, that's not a good solution. We Gallente have a saying: "CCP created the Gallente Militia to train the Fighters..."
Duffyman Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation 10	Posted - 2015.03.11 20:24:52 - [1658] - Quote What I still don't understand is why certain entities are pushing so hard for ceptors to be allowed to use sov laser. Do you even plan to take and keep sov? Will you defend it with interceptors?
Zappity Stay Frosty. A Band Apart. 1848	Posted - 2015.03.11 20:24:56 - [1659] - Quote CCP Fozzie wrote: There's a balance to be found between the two extremes. I think we'd be losing something significant if border control was strong enough to allow people to ignore their interiors. Having some ships move through gatecamps more easily and others less easily is a pretty helpful tool in getting that balance. Exactly. The end point should be that trollceptors are a valid threat to unoccupied space but not a threat to occupied space. I think this is already the case. Trollceptors in occupied space will just be easy killmails. Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec.
Eli Apol Definitely a nullsec alt 361	Posted - 2015.03.11 20:25:54 - [1660] - Quote Duffyman wrote: What I still don't understand is why certain entities are pushing so hard for ceptors to be allowed to use sov laser. Do you even plan to take and keep sov? Will you defend it with interceptors? OP wrote: The Entosis Link itself should have the minimum possible effect on what ships and tactics players can choose. Why do you want to remove a ship and tactic? but what would I know, I'm just a salvager

Kristian Hackett Alpha Republic - Transcenders of Space and Time Solyaris Chtonium 44	Posted - 2015.03.11 20:27:44 - [1661] - Quote Veskrashen wrote: Kristian Hackett wrote: Eli Apol wrote: and of course ANY OTHER SHIP sat at 0 running a defensive link. You still need to stop the troll's link to reverse the capture... So any other ship is not quite a viable option here. According to Gewns, the Trollceptor simply buggers off to harass another structure, so not really any issue there. If you get on grid and link up, you win under that scenario. Otherwise, just make sure you have DLAs and SeBos to sick your drones on them and you're good. That's the argument I keep seeing. Troll is going to just keep griefing and you need to keep playing whack-a-mole to keep up. Can it get old after a while? Sure. But in the same regard the troll is going to get bored with the same response after the 4th or 5th structure. All things considered it just means that Sov holders will need to maintain an active defensive presence in their systems. Aircraft Maintenance - Using a high school diploma to fix what a college degree just f**ed up. "Life is too short to drink cheap beer."*
Kristian Hackett Alpha Republic - Transcenders of Space and Time Solyaris Chtonium 44	Posted - 2015.03.11 20:33:30 - [1662] - Quote I think what people might find to be the scariest thought here is if the NPSI communities decide to do Trollceptor roams. At that point, no Sov is safe! insert evil laugh here Aircraft Maintenance - Using a high school diploma to fix what a college degree just f**ed up. "Life is too short to drink cheap beer."*
Freedom Nadd University of Caille Gallente Federation 8	Posted - 2015.03.11 20:35:57 - [1663] - Quote Veskrashen wrote: Freedom Nadd wrote: Which would lead to meaningful content and allow those who dominate the grid to control the FozzieSov(tm) fight. edit : Only defensive links would stack, offensive links remain as planned Which means you don't actually have to control the grid, you simply need to be able to bring more guys than the other side, i.e. N+1. Which is what this mechanic is supposed to avoid. If you can "win" by putting a dozen more ships on grid than the other guy and never actually interact in any way, that's not a good solution. Please define for me what "Controlling the grid" actually means? Consider Control of a battlefield, to any military minded individual it means having the forces and multipliers available to stop the enemy from completing their tactical goals and maintaining the initiative. That can be achieved with either forces working with multipliers (such as tanks, air strike or other indirect fire weaponry), better trained and equipped troops, higher moral or in the Rorke's Drift model, bodies thrown at the barricades until the pile of dead is so high the enemy dies under the weight of the corpses. All of these options are valid control mechanisms, apply small gang thinking to what should be end game content is petty and lacking in scope. One thing sorely lacking in this entire discussion is that the attacker SHOULD be responsible for mounting an efficient attack, by knowing their enemy and having the forces and multipliers available to follow through and complete the attack. Rather we havea discussion where the premium content ingame is being reduced to CODE. style grieving play.
Harry Saq Blueprint Haus Get Off My Lawn 71	Posted - 2015.03.11 20:44:55 - [1664] - Quote Consolidating my posts for posterity... Here are the goals of the Entosis Module as stated in the original post: As much as possible, the Entosis Link capture progress should reflect which group has effective military control of the grid. The optimal strategy for fighting over a location with the Entosis Link should be to gain effective control of the grid. The Entosis Link itself should have the minimum possible effect on what ships and tactics players can choose. The restrictions and penalties on the Entosis Link should be as simple and understandable as possible. The DevBlog states this: If two or more Entosis Links belonging to different GÇ£sidesGÇ¥ are operational on the same structure at the same time, neither will have any effect and all capture will be paused. This remains true even if one side has more Links operational on the structure than the other side. CCP Fozzie has further clarified the following: The Entosis Link cannot be stopped partway through the cycle. Once you start the module, you will suffer all the penalties (like being unable to warp or be assisted) until the cycle ends or until your ship explodes, whichever comes first. If you lose lock for any reason, the module stops capturing but continues to run on your ship until the end of the cycle. Losing lock will not allow you to warp early. An active Entosis Link would prevent cloaking for the duration of its cycle. We're currently leaning towards notifying when the capture impact begins, so while the module is in the warmup cycle it would not send a notification. That's open to change as we go forward though. Warping is blocked by the system literally not allowing the ship with the active Entosis Link to engage warp under any circumstances. It's not a scram or disruptor effect so it's not impacted by stabs or nullification or anything else. It also doesn't have an impact on MWDs or MJDs. If we want to add restrictions on those modules we can, but the actual warp prevention mechanic doesn't affect them. (In regards to Capital Ships) The initial warmup period would be longer, but once an Entosis Link is running past its first cycle, capture speed is the same no matter the cycle time. All jumping will be prevented while the link is active. (In regards to a ship being disabled) We'd much rather allow the Entosis Link ship to continue fighting and maneuvering to stay alive while it captures. My original proposal was this: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5570599#post5570599 All of the balance issues mentioned would be answered if the pilot were fully engaged while running the laser, and it would require teamwork, as multiboxing support ships would also not be ideal or feasible. My supporting arguments are as follows: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5572890#post5572890 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5572931#post5572931 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5572949#post5572949 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5572983#post5572983 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5573051#post5573051 In order to stay in line with the mechanics and goals stated by CCP Fozzie, I would propose that the "objective" I referred to throughout my arguments be to either simply maintain your lock (system naturally trying to jam you out; applies to both the attackers AND defenders), or sustain progress during the cycle (this was undefined as the original DevBlog only state that progress was paused while two opposing links ran, but didn't state how that actually played out, whatever that is, my suggestion just means progress is similarly paused if you are not working towards the objective as well) TLDR: Entosis link activates an interface (challenging fun objective based mini-game that doesn't suck, where the objective is maintaining a status of somekind) Not maintaining the interface results in the same stasis that an opposing side's active entosis creates OR Loss of target lock, and the module continues to cycle as though you were ECM jammed, or lost lock for whatever reason Meets all the balancing objectives above Eliminates/drastically reduces effectiveness of multiple alts run by a singe player (makes widescale trolling by a multi-alt individual much more difficult to impossible; atleast not simultaneously) Attacking and defending player can choose where they put their focus (maintaining objective or fighting/staying alive) Avoids N+1 but still promotes teamwork Uses existing mechanics Harry Saq for CSM X
Veskrashen Justified Chaos Spaceship Bebop 807	Posted - 2015.03.11 20:50:53 - [1665] - Quote Duffyman wrote: What I still don't understand is why certain entities are pushing so hard for ceptors to be allowed to use sov laser. Do you even plan to take and keep sov? Will you defend it with interceptors? Maybe and maybe. We Gallente have a saying: "CCP created the Gallente Militia to train the Fighters..."
Veskrashen Justified Chaos Spaceship Bebop 807	Posted - 2015.03.11 20:55:42 - [1666] - Quote Freedom Nadd wrote: Veskrashen wrote: Freedom Nadd wrote: Which would lead to meaningful content and allow those who dominate the grid to control the FozzieSov(tm) fight. edit : Only defensive links would stack, offensive links remain as planned Which means you don't actually have to control the grid, you simply need to be able to bring more guys than the other side, i.e. N+1. Which is what this mechanic is supposed to avoid. If you can "win" by putting a dozen more ships on grid than the other guy and never actually interact in any way, that's not a good solution. Please define for me what "Controlling the grid" actually means? Consider Control of a battlefield, to any military minded individual it means having the forces and multipliers available to stop the enemy from completing their tactical goals and maintaining the initiative. I consider control of a battlefield the same way you do - preventing your opponent from completing his goal. I just want you to have to actually interact with that opponent - kill him, jam him, damp him, force him to run away - rather than simply sit around with more active links on the structure than he has. If the counter to Trollceptor is 2x Trollceptors, that's not a good solution - especially if only defensive links stack. The opposite would be just as bad - if only attacking links stacked, things would be far imbalanced in favor of the Trollceptor Hordes (which I seriously hope becomes a mercenary corp name by June). We Gallente have a saying: "CCP created the Gallente Militia to train the Fighters..."
Alavaria Fera GoonWaffe 6617	Posted - 2015.03.11 20:55:52 - [1667] - Quote Duffyman wrote: What I still don't understand is why certain entities are pushing so hard for ceptors to be allowed to use sov laser. Do you even plan to take and keep sov? Will you defend it with interceptors? No they just plan to wreck our sov. ^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears. Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
Eli Apol Definitely a nullsec alt 362	Posted - 2015.03.11 20:57:29 - [1668] - Quote Alavaria Fera wrote: Duffyman wrote: What I still don't understand is why certain entities are pushing so hard for ceptors to be allowed to use sov laser. Do you even plan to take and keep sov? Will you defend it with interceptors? No they just plan to make us actively defend our sov. ftfy but what would I know, I'm just a salvager
Mike Azariah The Scope Gallente Federation 2626	Posted - 2015.03.11 20:57:31 - [1669] - Quote Kristian Hackett wrote: I think what people might find to be the scariest thought here is if the NPSI communities decide to do Trollceptor roams. At that point, no Sov is safe! insert evil laugh here Ganked, I hear, are already looking forward to it. I would assume others in the NPSI communities will be, as well. More people heading into space, heading to make action and now they have a method of ringing the doorbell. Quote: 'Warriors . . . come out to play - ayyy ' and yes, I know how that movie ends. But I disagree with one thing from the above. A defended sov will be safe from a roaming gang. A sov with indices will probably be fairly safe. One with a good defense force will have fights delivered to their doorstep. One with an organization and intel channels will be able to prepare for them, roll out the red carpet. m Mike Azariah Gö¼GöÇGöÇGö¼n++ ¯\|(pâä)/¯
davet517 Caldari Provisions Caldari State 71	Posted - 2015.03.11 21:00:55 - [1670] - Quote Duffyman wrote: What I still don't understand is why certain entities are pushing so hard for ceptors to be allowed to use sov laser. Do you even plan to take and keep sov? Will you defend it with interceptors? I would think that it's obvious. To create as many timers as possible for defenders who don't show up to defend so that they can't "death-blob" when it comes time for the capture event. With many timers running they'll have to spread out to avoid being attacked where they have not deployed. When you have a single, pre-determined point of attack, or even a few that are close together, numbers are always going to win. This counters that. Interceptors aren't the only way to achieve this, especially in renter districts. Just about any small PvP gang will do. Black ops gangs would be just as effective.

Lena Lazair Khanid Irregulars Khanid's Legion 424	Posted - 2015.03.11 21:04:49 - [1671] - Quote baltec1 wrote: This is why people with zero experience with sov warfare should not be in this thread. I'm on board with this, if it also goes both ways and no CFC member can ever post in a lowsec, FW, highsec missioning/mining, highsec wardec, or WH thread, ever again. I'll have my space lawyer write up the contract and get back to your diplos...
Scatim Helicon GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 3147	Posted - 2015.03.11 21:06:50 - [1672] - Quote Jenn aSide wrote: And I'm not kidding, this discussion was the exact same before dominion, with people (like goons) telling everyone "we will use this to make your game experience suck" and legions of short-sighted utopians on the other side proclaiming "this will be great, those big alliances are gonna get what's coming to them!!". Can somebody just replace every post in this thread with the above quote? Thanks. Post on the Eve-o forums with a Goonswarm Federation character that drinking bleach is bad for you, and 20 forum warriors will hospitalise themselves trying to prove you wrong.
Eli Apol Definitely a nullsec alt 362	Posted - 2015.03.11 21:09:49 - [1673] - Quote Scatim Helicon wrote: Goons wrote: Grr ceptors Can somebody just replace every post in this thread with the above quote? Thanks. No need. but what would I know, I'm just a salvager
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 678	Posted - 2015.03.11 21:21:31 - [1674] - Quote Lena Lazair wrote: baltec1 wrote: This is why people with zero experience with sov warfare should not be in this thread. I'm on board with this, if it also goes both ways and no CFC member can ever post in a lowsec, FW, highsec missioning/mining, highsec wardec, or WH thread, ever again. I'll have my space lawyer write up the contract and get back to your diplos... the mistake here is that you are ascribing our supposed inexperience with these areas of gameplay by our alliance ticker alone when you are ascribing your observed inexperience with 0.0 by your words
Eli Apol Definitely a nullsec alt 364	Posted - 2015.03.11 21:25:01 - [1675] - Quote The TMC guest sov expert xttz contradicted himself within 2 posts, the CFC's fitting expert baltec got wrecked in a discussion about how trollceptors are going to outrun ships that are doing twice the speed of them... Seems experience matters little in this discussion. but what would I know, I'm just a salvager
Philip Ogtaulmolfi Signal Cartel EvE-Scout Enclave 1	Posted - 2015.03.11 21:25:21 - [1676] - Quote Sigras wrote: To the people stating that trollceptors dont matter because you can counter them with a friendly entosis link... Picture this Scenario I have a fleet of 300 coming to capture your system after we reinforced it last night, but I dont like Fozzie's idea of splitting my fleet up to capture command nodes in different systems... So i allocate 20 of my ships as trollceptors. I send 4 of them to each command node to prevent it from being captured and move my other 260 people around capping the modules one by one. No need to split up my fleet, no risk of loss. Yea, I take my 20 ship fleet, split in four 5 ship fleets and after 25 minutes you lose the battle.
Alavaria Fera GoonWaffe 6618	Posted - 2015.03.11 21:25:38 - [1677] - Quote Promiscuous Female wrote: Lena Lazair wrote: baltec1 wrote: This is why people with zero experience with sov warfare should not be in this thread. I'm on board with this, if it also goes both ways and no CFC member can ever post in a lowsec, FW, highsec missioning/mining, highsec wardec, or WH thread, ever again. I'll have my space lawyer write up the contract and get back to your diplos... the mistake here is that you are ascribing our supposed inexperience with these areas of gameplay by our alliance ticker alone when you are ascribing your observed inexperience with 0.0 by your words But fweddit are FW people And we have wormhole groups Also we have people who gank and do highsec wardecs (though mostly it's more costefficient to just gank) ^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears. Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 678	Posted - 2015.03.11 21:27:07 - [1678] - Quote Eli Apol wrote: The TMC guest sov expert xttz contradicted himself within 2 posts, the CFC's fitting expert baltec got wrecked in a discussion about how trollceptors are going to outrun ships that are doing twice the speed of them... Seems experience matters little in this discussion. baltec is our fitting expert? also [citation needed] on the contradictions
Alavaria Fera GoonWaffe 6618	Posted - 2015.03.11 21:27:43 - [1679] - Quote Philip Ogtaulmolfi wrote: Sigras wrote: To the people stating that trollceptors dont matter because you can counter them with a friendly entosis link... Picture this Scenario I have a fleet of 300 coming to capture your system after we reinforced it last night, but I dont like Fozzie's idea of splitting my fleet up to capture command nodes in different systems... So i allocate 20 of my ships as trollceptors. I send 4 of them to each command node to prevent it from being captured and move my other 260 people around capping the modules one by one. No need to split up my fleet, no risk of loss. Yea, I take my 20 ship fleet, split in four 5 ship fleets and after 40 minutes you lose the battle. So basically instead take 256 (max in a fleet anyway) and the other 44 split up and send double the people to each thing that your 20 fleet does I mean this is hardly surprising ^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears. Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
Eli Apol Definitely a nullsec alt 364	Posted - 2015.03.11 21:29:12 - [1680] - Quote Promiscuous Female wrote: baltec is our fitting expert? You have several fleet fits named after the guy, sorry if I assumed too much, perhaps you have some others that might want to step up to the plate? Promiscuous Female wrote: also [citation needed] on the contradictions https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5573398#post5573398 edit: I'm sorry I haven't worked out your own point of expertise yet :( but what would I know, I'm just a salvager

SilentAsTheGrave Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective 108	Posted - 2015.03.11 21:34:49 - [1681] - Quote Jenn aSide wrote: And I'm not kidding, this discussion was the exact same before dominion, with people (like goons) telling everyone "we will use this to make your game experience suck" and legions of short-sighted utopians on the other side proclaiming "this will be great, those big alliances are gonna get what's coming to them!!". [/quote] [Citation Needed] Not to be ignored is Dominion sov was shipped unfinished due to CCP focusing heavy development on World of Darkness and Dust 514. I'm serious. I really would like to see some legitimate links to some threads where the masses were chanting this will be the end of goons and goons saying Dominion sov will be terrible before it was released to Singularity and Tranquility. I'm always eager to learn and read up on these things. So please, link me some threads that support your claim.
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 678	Posted - 2015.03.11 21:35:15 - [1682] - Quote Eli Apol wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: baltec is our fitting expert? You have several fleet fits named after the guy, sorry if I assumed too much, perhaps you have some others that might want to step up to the plate? yeah our megathron fleet is named baltecfleet because baltec1 only ever flies megathrons in any sort of fleet regardless if it's a good idea to use a megathron or not goons happen to love gimmicks more than most things (except food) Eli Apol wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: also [citation needed] on the contradictions https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5573398#post5573398 yeah this is just poor use of semantics in a shallow attempt to trip someone up, not valid sorry
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 15465	Posted - 2015.03.11 21:36:02 - [1683] - Quote Eli Apol wrote: The TMC guest sov expert xttz contradicted himself within 2 posts, the CFC's fitting expert baltec got wrecked in a discussion about how trollceptors are going to outrun ships that are doing twice the speed of them... Seems experience matters little in this discussion. Yea, no such thing happened. Want wrecked? Just wait till we start injecting 10 man gangs of t3 destroyers fitted to avoid anything that can kill them but able to kill anything that can almost catch them. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
Eli Apol Definitely a nullsec alt 365	Posted - 2015.03.11 21:37:44 - [1684] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Yea, no such thing happened. Want wrecked? Just wait till we start injecting 10 man gangs of t3 destroyers fitted to avoid anything that can kill them but able to kill anything that can almost catch them. But trollceptors are still uncatchable right? You left me hanging on that one. edit: Nice of you to catch up on the T3 dessie meta by the way - fortunately these can be bubbled as you'll be glad to hear. but what would I know, I'm just a salvager
Zappity Stay Frosty. A Band Apart. 1853	Posted - 2015.03.11 21:42:04 - [1685] - Quote baltec1 wrote: This is why people with zero experience with sov warfare should not be in this thread. This is wrong. The fact that you do not find the current, broken sov system interesting and worth getting invested in should not exclude you from commenting on the new system, which will hopefully repair some of that brokenness. Otherwise the only feedback will be from people who find the current system acceptable. Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec.
SilentAsTheGrave Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective 108	Posted - 2015.03.11 21:49:48 - [1686] - Quote Zappity wrote: baltec1 wrote: This is why people with zero experience with sov warfare should not be in this thread. This is wrong. The fact that you do not find the current, broken sov system interesting and worth getting invested in should not exclude you from commenting on the new system, which will hopefully repair some of that brokenness. Otherwise the only feedback will be from people who find the current system acceptable. ^^ Quoting for truth! It is amusing to see current null bloc members cry their eyes out why there is no new blood in sov and the moment anyone that is not part of one of these super coalition blocs has an opinion on the matter they are told to shut up and should not be listened to. It is that kind of thinking that ruins any quality discussion on the matter. Having that kind of negative mentality is childish and doesn't help the conversation at all.
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 679	Posted - 2015.03.11 21:50:04 - [1687] - Quote Zappity wrote: baltec1 wrote: This is why people with zero experience with sov warfare should not be in this thread. This is wrong. The fact that you do not find the current, broken sov system interesting and worth getting invested in should not exclude you from commenting on the new system, which will hopefully repair some of that brokenness. Otherwise the only feedback will be from people who find the current system acceptable. at what point did we say the current system was acceptable
Alavaria Fera GoonWaffe 6618	Posted - 2015.03.11 21:50:32 - [1688] - Quote Zappity wrote: baltec1 wrote: This is why people with zero experience with sov warfare should not be in this thread. This is wrong. The fact that you do not find the current, broken sov system interesting and worth getting invested in should not exclude you from commenting on the new system, which will hopefully repair some of that brokenness. Otherwise the only feedback will be from people who find the current system acceptable. Oh so you're making excuses for not knowing now. It's fine really, ccp will rather listen to you than evil cfc people anyway, just rant away about ending our 0.0 nightmare ^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears. Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 15465	Posted - 2015.03.11 21:52:50 - [1689] - Quote Zappity wrote: baltec1 wrote: This is why people with zero experience with sov warfare should not be in this thread. This is wrong. The fact that you do not find the current, broken sov system interesting and worth getting invested in should not exclude you from commenting on the new system, which will hopefully repair some of that brokenness. Otherwise the only feedback will be from people who find the current system acceptable. When have we ever said we find the current situation acceptable? Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
Eli Apol Definitely a nullsec alt 365	Posted - 2015.03.11 21:55:36 - [1690] - Quote baltec1 wrote: When have we ever said we find the current situation acceptable? Sorry I had a question for you before you try and move onto another topic: Are trollceptors uncatchable? Yes/no but what would I know, I'm just a salvager

baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 15465	Posted - 2015.03.11 21:58:32 - [1691] - Quote Eli Apol wrote: But trollceptors are still uncatchable right? You left me hanging on that one. Flown right then yea, they will escape more than you can kill them. The point however, that you keep on missing, is that sov battles will become nothing but swarms of intercepters and other small fast ships build to avoid rather than fight. The end result being an even more boring sov system than tower bashing. Eli Apol wrote: edit: Nice of you to catch up on the T3 dessie meta by the way - fortunately these can be bubbled as you'll be glad to hear. What makes you think they are going to be getting in via gates? Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
Eli Apol Definitely a nullsec alt 367	Posted - 2015.03.11 22:08:08 - [1692] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Eli Apol wrote: But trollceptors are still uncatchable right? You left me hanging on that one. Flown right then yea Wrong. Even flown right they can be chased down and ruined by a 10km/s T3 dessie (much more with links and implants). edit: With LUCK they might get away if they have less than half of their entosis module cycle time remaining and are flown right. baltec1 wrote: What makes you think they are going to be getting in via gates? They can be bubbled when you try and trololol to the next system then. Or are you actually going to have a fight in that system? Does the proposed mechanic work in making you fight for grid dominance in your T3 dessie uberfit (which I'm sure there will be counters for as well)? but what would I know, I'm just a salvager
Kristian Hackett Alpha Republic - Transcenders of Space and Time Solyaris Chtonium 45	Posted - 2015.03.11 22:14:02 - [1693] - Quote baltec1 wrote: What makes you think they are going to be getting in via gates? Oh, so you're going to bridge them in? Yea sure go ahead, light that cyno! Might as well send the defenders an email stating your intent to attack ahead of time. But let's not get away from the issue at hand here, which is the Entosis Link fitted to specific ships... Aircraft Maintenance - Using a high school diploma to fix what a college degree just f**ed up. "Life is too short to drink cheap beer."*
Flaming Butterfly Black Serpent Technologies Black Legion. 4	Posted - 2015.03.11 22:16:37 - [1694] - Quote https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5568555#post5568555
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 15465	Posted - 2015.03.11 22:17:46 - [1695] - Quote Kristian Hackett wrote: baltec1 wrote: What makes you think they are going to be getting in via gates? Oh, so you're going to bridge them in? Yea sure go ahead, light that cyno! Might as well send the defenders an email stating your intent to attack ahead of time. But let's not get away from the issue at hand here, which is the Entosis Link fitted to specific ships... Wormholes. We use them more than titans these days. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 15465	Posted - 2015.03.11 22:19:11 - [1696] - Quote Eli Apol wrote: baltec1 wrote: Eli Apol wrote: But trollceptors are still uncatchable right? You left me hanging on that one. Flown right then yea Wrong. Even flown right they can be chased down and ruined by a 10km/s T3 dessie (much more with links and implants). edit: With LUCK they might get away if they have less than half of their entosis module cycle time remaining and are flown right. 2nd edit: Also remember that the defending team could quite feasibly start a stopwatch when the initial ping comes through and time their attack 2m01 afterwards = definitely dead ceptors. baltec1 wrote: What makes you think they are going to be getting in via gates? They can be bubbled when you try and trololol to the next system then. Or are you actually going to have a fight in that system? Does the proposed mechanic work in making you fight for grid dominance in your T3 dessie uberfit (which I'm sure there will be counters for as well)? Way to ignore yet again the entire point of the trollcepter and why its terrible. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
Kristian Hackett Alpha Republic - Transcenders of Space and Time Solyaris Chtonium 45	Posted - 2015.03.11 22:19:31 - [1697] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Kristian Hackett wrote: baltec1 wrote: What makes you think they are going to be getting in via gates? Oh, so you're going to bridge them in? Yea sure go ahead, light that cyno! Might as well send the defenders an email stating your intent to attack ahead of time. But let's not get away from the issue at hand here, which is the Entosis Link fitted to specific ships... Wormholes. We use them more than titans these days. Wormholes can be collapsed. Aircraft Maintenance - Using a high school diploma to fix what a college degree just f**ed up. "Life is too short to drink cheap beer."*
Grath Telkin Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion 2735	Posted - 2015.03.11 22:20:47 - [1698] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Kristian Hackett wrote: baltec1 wrote: What makes you think they are going to be getting in via gates? Oh, so you're going to bridge them in? Yea sure go ahead, light that cyno! Might as well send the defenders an email stating your intent to attack ahead of time. But let's not get away from the issue at hand here, which is the Entosis Link fitted to specific ships... Wormholes. We use them more than titans these days. Lets focus on your earlier post where you ask for people to suggest ways to kill an interceptor Malcanis - Without drone assign, the slowcat doctrine will wither and die.
Eli Apol Definitely a nullsec alt 367	Posted - 2015.03.11 22:25:58 - [1699] - Quote https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pmEwZ2JJOUk#t=1m11 but what would I know, I'm just a salvager
Nolak Ataru KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 773	Posted - 2015.03.11 22:26:07 - [1700] - Quote Eli Apol wrote: baltec1 wrote: Eli Apol wrote: But trollceptors are still uncatchable right? You left me hanging on that one. Flown right then yea Wrong. Even flown right they can be chased down and ruined by a 10km/s T3 dessie (much more with links and implants). Er, correct me if I'm wrong, but oversized propmods kinda kill your agility don't they? All an inty has to do is turn left or right and the T3 will be severely penalized.

Kristian Hackett Alpha Republic - Transcenders of Space and Time Solyaris Chtonium 45	Posted - 2015.03.11 22:27:08 - [1701] - Quote Grath Telkin wrote: baltec1 wrote: Kristian Hackett wrote: baltec1 wrote: What makes you think they are going to be getting in via gates? Oh, so you're going to bridge them in? Yea sure go ahead, light that cyno! Might as well send the defenders an email stating your intent to attack ahead of time. But let's not get away from the issue at hand here, which is the Entosis Link fitted to specific ships... Wormholes. We use them more than titans these days. Lets focus on your earlier post where you ask for people to suggest ways to kill an interceptor I can answer that, in fact, I already did - https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5573127#post5573127 Add in the Cruor and Garmur fits from here - https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5573252#post5573252 That interceptor isn't going to last long if it tries to maintain the link... Aircraft Maintenance - Using a high school diploma to fix what a college degree just f**ed up. "Life is too short to drink cheap beer."*
Kaarous Aldurald Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE. 12111	Posted - 2015.03.11 22:27:09 - [1702] - Quote CCP Fozzie wrote: We do not intend to allow pure evasion tactics to become optimal. Then make it disable prop mods on a ship activating it. Evasion tactics will be optimal so long as they are possible. The solution is to make them impossible. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs.
Kristian Hackett Alpha Republic - Transcenders of Space and Time Solyaris Chtonium 45	Posted - 2015.03.11 22:29:19 - [1703] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: CCP Fozzie wrote: We do not intend to allow pure evasion tactics to become optimal. Then make it disable prop mods on a ship activating it. Evasion tactics will be optimal so long as they are possible. The solution is to make them impossible. I have to agree here. You can disrupt a pure evasion fit, but you can't remove it from grid. Disable the prop mods - if the attacker wants to stick around they better be ready to fight (or soak a stupid amount of damage). Aircraft Maintenance - Using a high school diploma to fix what a college degree just f**ed up. "Life is too short to drink cheap beer."*
Kristian Hackett Alpha Republic - Transcenders of Space and Time Solyaris Chtonium 45	Posted - 2015.03.11 22:30:23 - [1704] - Quote interceptors can be removed if you have a faster tackle, T3s would be a headache. Aircraft Maintenance - Using a high school diploma to fix what a college degree just f**ed up. "Life is too short to drink cheap beer."*
PotatoOverdose Royal Black Watch Highlanders DARKNESS. 2655	Posted - 2015.03.11 22:30:35 - [1705] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Evasion tactics will be optimal so long as they are possible. [Citation needed]
Eli Apol Definitely a nullsec alt 367	Posted - 2015.03.11 22:34:32 - [1706] - Quote Nolak Ataru wrote: Er, correct me if I'm wrong, but oversized propmods kinda kill your agility don't they? All an inty has to do is turn left or right and the T3 will be severely penalized. T3 dessie has an agility buff whilst in prop mode. Ceptor has to change direction enough to make it out of OH scram range from something chasing it at double the speed. maybe with superb manual pilotting he might manage it, whilst the chasing dessie only has to press approach - a well timed sling shot might work though, but could be countered by the dessie pilots skill. Sounds like a fun or not so fun minute or two for the ceptor pilot at least. but what would I know, I'm just a salvager
Kaarous Aldurald Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE. 12111	Posted - 2015.03.11 22:35:20 - [1707] - Quote PotatoOverdose wrote: Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Evasion tactics will be optimal so long as they are possible. [Citation needed] Ever heard of these new things they have now, called people? People will always take the low road, they will always do as little as possible to get to their goals. It's really rather interesting. Sarcasm aside, it's a binary equation. Either it's possible to capture sov by dicking around in a kiting ship, or it's not. If it is, then it's a damn sight easier than actually fighting for sov, so it will become the optimal assignment of resources. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs.
Kristian Hackett Alpha Republic - Transcenders of Space and Time Solyaris Chtonium 45	Posted - 2015.03.11 22:42:32 - [1708] - Quote Eli Apol wrote: Nolak Ataru wrote: Er, correct me if I'm wrong, but oversized propmods kinda kill your agility don't they? All an inty has to do is turn left or right and the T3 will be severely penalized. T3 dessie has an agility buff whilst in prop mode. Ceptor has to change direction enough to make it out of OH scram range from something chasing it at double the speed. maybe with superb manual pilotting he might manage it, whilst the chasing dessie only has to press approach - a well timed sling shot might work though, but could be countered by the dessie pilots skill. Sounds like a fun or not so fun minute or two for the ceptor pilot at least. Getting out of scram range will be difficult, especially if it's the Cruor that catches it. That frigate has a 20km web which would be more than enough to close the gap to lay on the scrambler and shut out the MWD. The ideal team is a Cruor with web and Garmur with a Warp Disruptor II fitted. 36km range on Warp Disruptor II (Garmur), 20km range on webs (Cruor), 13 km range on Warp Scrambler II (Garmur), and then the Cruor finishes the capture by sucking the Interceptor's capacitor dry. Aircraft Maintenance - Using a high school diploma to fix what a college degree just f**ed up. "Life is too short to drink cheap beer."*
Eli Apol Definitely a nullsec alt 367	Posted - 2015.03.11 22:43:01 - [1709] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: PotatoOverdose wrote: Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Evasion tactics will be optimal so long as they are possible. [Citation needed] Ever heard of these new things they have now, called people? People will always take the low road, they will always do as little as possible to get to their goals. It's really rather interesting. Sarcasm aside, it's a binary equation. Either it's possible to capture sov by dicking around in a kiting ship, or it's not. If it is, then it's a damn sight easier than actually fighting for sov, so it will become the optimal assignment of resources. It's not binary. It depends on your local defensive resources. but what would I know, I'm just a salvager
PotatoOverdose Royal Black Watch Highlanders DARKNESS. 2656	Posted - 2015.03.11 22:49:56 - [1710] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: PotatoOverdose wrote: Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Evasion tactics will be optimal so long as they are possible. [Citation needed] Ever heard of these new things they have now, called people? People will always take the low road, they will always do as little as possible to get to their goals. It's really rather interesting. Sarcasm aside, it's a binary equation. Either it's possible to capture sov by dicking around in a kiting ship, or it's not. If it is, then it's a damn sight easier than actually fighting for sov, so it will become the optimal assignment of resources. That's a bunch of opinion, with no fact, and certainly no [citation]. But sarcasm aside, with their inabillity to warp off, troll cepters (especially those that are gimmick s* fits that trade all their rigs and most of their mid slots for 110km lock range) will die in droves to Dramiels and Garmurs, as well as Rail Eagles and Tengus who can plink them down from 50km to 200km+ using Javelin, CN Antimatter, and CN Thorium. Where you see a troll ceptor, I see a killmail. Where you see hundreds of gewns spreading across hundreds of systems, I see hundreds of killmails. And I like** it, It's just that simple. I've killed dozens of ceptors in a single day before, solo. I'd link proof here if it wouldn't get my post deleted by Ezwal. This isn't boasting, many people in this thread have reported similar experiences. Ceptors die. Swarms of "unkillable" interceptors are a ~narrative~. A ~narrative~ that no one who knows what they're talking about is buying. I don't know how else to explain it to you. vOv

EvilweaselFinance BUTTECORP INC Goonswarm Federation 714	Posted - 2015.03.11 22:51:33 - [1711] - Quote Grath Telkin wrote: Lets focus on your earlier post where you ask for people to suggest ways to kill an interceptor despite what you probably assumed this is one of those cases dropping supercaps on it doesn't work
Alavaria Fera GoonWaffe 6618	Posted - 2015.03.11 22:52:06 - [1712] - Quote EvilweaselFinance wrote: Grath Telkin wrote: Lets focus on your earlier post where you ask for people to suggest ways to kill an interceptor despite what you probably assumed this is one of those cases dropping supercaps on it doesn't work Smartbombing though pl did lose titan smartbombing on a gate in lowsec ^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears. Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
Scatim Helicon GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 3149	Posted - 2015.03.11 22:56:39 - [1713] - Quote Kristian Hackett wrote: Kaarous Aldurald wrote: CCP Fozzie wrote: We do not intend to allow pure evasion tactics to become optimal. Then make it disable prop mods on a ship activating it. Evasion tactics will be optimal so long as they are possible. The solution is to make them impossible. I have to agree here. You can disrupt a pure evasion fit, but you can't remove it from grid. Disable the prop mods - if the attacker wants to stick around they better be ready to fight (or soak a stupid amount of damage). Yeah, this entire 68 page and counting argument can be resolved with a single sentence from Fozzie saying that activation of the Entosis Link carries some kind of significant mobility penalty, whether that be disabling of prop mods, a flat self-webbing effect, or whatever. And if Entosis-fitted interceptors are as easy to catch as the detractors claim it will make no difference to impose such a penalty. Post on the Eve-o forums with a Goonswarm Federation character that drinking bleach is bad for you, and 20 forum warriors will hospitalise themselves trying to prove you wrong.
Eli Apol Definitely a nullsec alt 367	Posted - 2015.03.11 22:59:07 - [1714] - Quote Scatim Helicon wrote: Kristian Hackett wrote: Kaarous Aldurald wrote: CCP Fozzie wrote: We do not intend to allow pure evasion tactics to become optimal. Then make it disable prop mods on a ship activating it. Evasion tactics will be optimal so long as they are possible. The solution is to make them impossible. I have to agree here. You can disrupt a pure evasion fit, but you can't remove it from grid. Disable the prop mods - if the attacker wants to stick around they better be ready to fight (or soak a stupid amount of damage). Yeah, this entire 68 page and counting argument becomes mute with a single sentence from Fozzie saying that activation of the Entosis Link carries some kind of significant mobility penalty, whether that be disabling of prop mods, a flat self-webbing effect, or whatever. Afaik I think someone just showed there's not necessarily a reason for that anymore /checks the previous page Yep, I think we're clear of the trollceptor thing now, think it's done with. Rest In Pieces. but what would I know, I'm just a salvager
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 681	Posted - 2015.03.11 22:59:08 - [1715] - Quote alternatively just hard lock all ships to minimum 3s align except pod and shuttle look at how easy it is to fix eve
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 681	Posted - 2015.03.11 23:00:02 - [1716] - Quote Eli Apol wrote: Scatim Helicon wrote: Kristian Hackett wrote: Kaarous Aldurald wrote: CCP Fozzie wrote: We do not intend to allow pure evasion tactics to become optimal. Then make it disable prop mods on a ship activating it. Evasion tactics will be optimal so long as they are possible. The solution is to make them impossible. I have to agree here. You can disrupt a pure evasion fit, but you can't remove it from grid. Disable the prop mods - if the attacker wants to stick around they better be ready to fight (or soak a stupid amount of damage). Yeah, this entire 68 page and counting argument becomes mute with a single sentence from Fozzie saying that activation of the Entosis Link carries some kind of significant mobility penalty, whether that be disabling of prop mods, a flat self-webbing effect, or whatever. Afaik I think someone just showed there's not necessarily a reason for that anymore /checks the previous page Yep, I think we're clear of the trollceptor thing now, think it's done with. Rest In Pieces. nah, interceptors are still a problem but thanks for posting
Nolak Ataru KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 774	Posted - 2015.03.11 23:03:15 - [1717] - Quote Eli Apol wrote: Nolak Ataru wrote: Er, correct me if I'm wrong, but oversized propmods kinda kill your agility don't they? All an inty has to do is turn left or right and the T3 will be severely penalized. T3 dessie has an agility buff whilst in prop mode. Ceptor has to change direction enough to make it out of OH scram range from something chasing it at double the speed. maybe with superb manual pilotting he might manage it, whilst the chasing dessie only has to press approach - a well timed sling shot might work but could be countered by the dessie pilots skill as well. Sounds like a fun or not so fun minute or two for the ceptor pilot at least. Even with it's agility buff it's a pain in the ass to turn with an oversized, overheated prop mod. The interceptor has a massive advantage in it's agility, and it's immunity to bubbles. An inty can dart onto the field, examine the situation, and GTFO if need be. T3 dessies may move twice as fast, but they still have to finish dropping out of warp, align, and spool up their prop mod in order to catch the interceptor which may be well on it's way to leaving the grid (via warping or physical grid boundaries) if he pays attention to D-scan.
Eli Apol Definitely a nullsec alt 367	Posted - 2015.03.11 23:03:23 - [1718] - Quote Promiscuous Female wrote: nah, interceptors are still a problem but thanks for posting Outside of Entosis links, perhaps, take it to Ships and Modules if you want to discuss them in the broader game. Thanks for posting x198 but what would I know, I'm just a salvager
PotatoOverdose Royal Black Watch Highlanders DARKNESS. 2656	Posted - 2015.03.11 23:04:44 - [1719] - Quote Promiscuous Female wrote: alternatively just hard lock all ships to minimum 3s align except pod and shuttle look at how easy it is to fix eve Case in point - what does align time matter when an Interceptor is using an Entosis link and can't warp off? Oh noes, the inty aligned on me! All is lost!~~ This entire thread is an exercise in narrative control. Some individuals and/or groups don't like interceptors and will use any excuse to try and get them nerfed.
Yroc Jannseen Enlightened Industries Goonswarm Federation 72	Posted - 2015.03.11 23:10:28 - [1720] - Quote PotatoOverdose wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: alternatively just hard lock all ships to minimum 3s align except pod and shuttle look at how easy it is to fix eve Case in point - what does align time matter when an Interceptor is using an Entosis link and can't warp off? Oh noes, the inty aligned on me! All is lost!~~ This entire thread is an exercise in narrative control. Some individuals and/or groups don't like interceptors and will use any excuse to try and get them nerfed. If this thread was about narrative control there'd be more than half a dozen people from the CFC involved.

Grath Telkin Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion 2736	Posted - 2015.03.11 23:15:06 - [1721] - Quote EvilweaselFinance wrote: Grath Telkin wrote: Lets focus on your earlier post where you ask for people to suggest ways to kill an interceptor despite what you probably assumed this is one of those cases dropping supercaps on it doesn't work I think you'll find that to be a tragic mistake if you really believe that. Malcanis - Without drone assign, the slowcat doctrine will wither and die.
Miner Hottie Valar Morghulis. Goonswarm Federation 78	Posted - 2015.03.11 23:15:08 - [1722] - Quote Veskrashen wrote: baltec1 wrote: Everything you said is rubbish. Your ignorance and nullbear blinders are showing. baltec1 wrote: I want small gangs not an endless swarm of cepters that you will not catch with any sniper that a defender would be forced to waste 4 hours of their playtime chasing around. Its not fun, it wont generate fights and it will make sov even worse than it is today. The defender has no advantage at all in this situation and after a few months of this you will see a mass burnout. Its a **** tactic that cannot be allowed to happen. If you can't handle solo Interceptors with no tank who can't disengage at will, you're completely blind to the advantages you have as a defender. Try talking to folks who actually have to deal with similar mechanics today - i.e. FW pilots - and you'll get a bazillion ideas on how to leverage the defensive advantages you have. I really really hope that CCP continues to allow Entosis Links on Interceptors. It will result in the biggest buckets of nullbear tears since Pheobe. Querns wrote: CCP Fozzie wrote:** There's a balance to be found between the two extremes. I think we'd be losing something significant if border control was strong enough to allow people to ignore their interiors. Having some ships move through gatecamps more easily and others less easily is a pretty helpful tool in getting that balance. Definitely GÇö I understand the concerns. I just wanted to keep it fresh in everyone's minds, since it's pretty obvious where I was going with that line of thought. Some serious deliberation on the current state of interdiction nullification is called for, I think; especially in the face of things like covert ops cloaking ships, Black Ops Battleship bridging, titan bridging (as useful as these are with a 5LY range, at any rate,) and wormholes already allowing attackers to circumvent static gate camps. Part of the reason it's so important for Interceptors - and other fast aligning interdiction nullified ships - is that mobility within "defended space" is just as important as being able to penetrate the borders in the first place. The reason that we've had 250ish pages plus multiple TMC articles worth of Gewn propoganda railing against Trollceptors is because literally EVERY OTHER SHIP PLATFORM can be interdicted with bubblecamps. This includes both the static wall o' bubbles already common in nullsec, as well as the impromptu camps that get thrown up using 'Dictors and HICs. The fact that a defender can easily "bottle up" a group of BLOPS boats or SBs or folks coming in through a wormhole is precisely the reason that Interceptors need to continue to have the ability to fit Entosis Links without additional penalty over other hulls. He said swarms of interceptors you semi literate simpleton. Fleets of them. 1 dude being a troll in a trollceptor can be dealt with. 255 of them coming from all directions and running every which way are much much harder. But keep beating your FW drum and leave null secto the people who are harassed every day by risk averse pussies like Poitot Dot and his gang of Maledictions every day. It's all about how hot my mining lasers get.
Eli Apol Definitely a nullsec alt 367	Posted - 2015.03.11 23:18:33 - [1723] - Quote Yroc Jannseen wrote: PotatoOverdose wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: alternatively just hard lock all ships to minimum 3s align except pod and shuttle look at how easy it is to fix eve Case in point - what does align time matter when an Interceptor is using an Entosis link and can't warp off? Oh noes, the inty aligned on me! All is lost!~~ This entire thread is an exercise in narrative control. Some individuals and/or groups don't like interceptors and will use any excuse to try and get them nerfed. If this thread was about narrative control there'd be more than half a dozen people from the CFC involved. How about half a dozen in just the top 20 and 30% of posts purely from Goonswarm Fed without counting the rest of the coalition? I mean fair play a lot of those were complete dross but it's not like you're under-represented here. edit: I guess if anything the highsec salvagers are over-represented with their pleas to allow the module to be fitted on their Noctis but what would I know, I'm just a salvager
Alavaria Fera GoonWaffe 6619	Posted - 2015.03.11 23:21:57 - [1724] - Quote Yroc Jannseen wrote: PotatoOverdose wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: alternatively just hard lock all ships to minimum 3s align except pod and shuttle look at how easy it is to fix eve Case in point - what does align time matter when an Interceptor is using an Entosis link and can't warp off? Oh noes, the inty aligned on me! All is lost!~~ This entire thread is an exercise in narrative control. Some individuals and/or groups don't like interceptors and will use any excuse to try and get them nerfed. If this thread was about narrative control there'd be more than half a dozen people from the CFC involved. It's like sov trolling, we just need to keep posting and moving to the next post until all the defenders give up on their sov ^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears. Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
Eli Apol Definitely a nullsec alt 367	Posted - 2015.03.11 23:23:16 - [1725] - Quote Alavaria Fera wrote: Yroc Jannseen wrote: PotatoOverdose wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: alternatively just hard lock all ships to minimum 3s align except pod and shuttle look at how easy it is to fix eve Case in point - what does align time matter when an Interceptor is using an Entosis link and can't warp off? Oh noes, the inty aligned on me! All is lost!~~ This entire thread is an exercise in narrative control. Some individuals and/or groups don't like interceptors and will use any excuse to try and get them nerfed. If this thread was about narrative control there'd be more than half a dozen people from the CFC involved. It's like sov trolling, we just need to keep posting and moving to the next post until all the defenders give up on their sov I had noticed that similarity tbh but was too polite to point it out. but what would I know, I'm just a salvager
Veskrashen Justified Chaos Spaceship Bebop 811	Posted - 2015.03.11 23:32:20 - [1726] - Quote Scatim Helicon wrote: Yeah, this entire 68 page and counting argument can be resolved with a single sentence from Fozzie saying that activation of the Entosis Link carries some kind of significant mobility penalty, whether that be disabling of prop mods, a flat self-webbing effect, or whatever. And if Entosis-fitted interceptors are as easy to catch as the detractors claim it will make no difference to impose such a penalty. No. Kiting doctrines should remain viable, if the design principle is to not influence fleet design for ships flying with Entosis Links. That means no speed maulus, no inertia maulus, no "Entosis Shock" mechanics, etc etc etc. Learn to counter small fast stuff, don't force CCP to hold your hands. We Gallente have a saying: "CCP created the Gallente Militia to train the Fighters..."
Veskrashen Justified Chaos Spaceship Bebop 811	Posted - 2015.03.11 23:33:43 - [1727] - Quote Promiscuous Female wrote: alternatively just hard lock all ships to minimum 3s align except pod and shuttle look at how easy it is to fix eve Or, keep it like it is, so that gatecamps don't grant safety and allow you to control disproportionate amounts of space. Drop systems you don't need and shrink your empire to an appropriate size. See how easy it is to adapt to Fozziesov? We Gallente have a saying: "CCP created the Gallente Militia to train the Fighters..."
Chi'Nane T'Kal Interminatus Aeterna Anima 317	Posted - 2015.03.11 23:43:44 - [1728] - Quote CCP Fozzie wrote: John McCreedy wrote: With respect Fozzie, that's not what he asked. You skilfully sidestepped the question. Does it or does it not require members to be in the system under attack? Yes or no? What part of "all alliance members" isn't clear? You don't need to be in any specific system to receive the notification in our current plan. Is that part still under consideration? Seems a bit counterintuitive to the 'alliance needs to maintain presence' policy. Why not restrict it to the constellation and require the active alliance members there to notify their alliance?
Syn Shi School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State 134	Posted - 2015.03.12 00:00:47 - [1729] - Quote It appears many think SoV changes will brake up the big alliances. It wont. They have been sitting stagnant stock piling isk. They can afford to blob much longer than any new corp will be able to. And there is no reason for the big alliances to fight. The only think that will fix Null is when too many people get bored and find something else to spend their money on. It may create more content for smaller corps but if the big corps choose they can make it so no one will be able to hold anything unless they pay them.........no change. Stagnant null with some small gimicky fights to throw up more "look how many ships have been lost".
Alavaria Fera GoonWaffe 6619	Posted - 2015.03.12 00:03:41 - [1730] - Quote Syn Shi wrote: The only think that will fix Null is when too many people get bored and find something else to spend their money on. It may create more content for smaller corps but if the big corps choose they can make it so no one will be able to hold anything unless they pay them.........no change. Stagnant null with some small gimicky fights to throw up more "look how many ships have been lost". So, like sov trolling, they need to bore us out of null? So, with a method like sov trolling then.... ^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears. Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.

Yolandar Estrogen Industrial Enterprises 51	Posted - 2015.03.12 00:15:57 - [1731] - Quote Geez, even I am going to train up for ROFLCeptors now Look Ma, I'm SOVqueen, taking Eve all by muhself.
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 681	Posted - 2015.03.12 00:27:39 - [1732] - Quote Veskrashen wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: alternatively just hard lock all ships to minimum 3s align except pod and shuttle look at how easy it is to fix eve Or, keep it like it is, so that gatecamps don't grant safety and allow you to control disproportionate amounts of space. Drop systems you don't need and shrink your empire to an appropriate size. See how easy it is to adapt to Fozziesov? gatecamps aren't ironclad defense have you heard of wormholes, covert ops cloaks, and titan/blops bs bridging i understand that you once lost a ship once to a gatecamp and this made you angry but don't blame the gatecamp for you being bad
Jenn aSide Smokin Aces. 10170	Posted - 2015.03.12 00:33:02 - [1733] - Quote SilentAsTheGrave wrote: Jenn aSide wrote: And I'm not kidding, this discussion was the exact same before dominion, with people (like goons) telling everyone "we will use this to make your game experience suck" and legions of short-sighted utopians on the other side proclaiming "this will be great, those big alliances are gonna get what's coming to them!!". [Citation Needed] Not to be ignored is Dominion sov was shipped unfinished due to CCP focusing heavy development on World of Darkness and Dust 514. I'm serious. I really would like to see some legitimate links to some threads where the masses were chanting this will be the end of goons and goons saying Dominion sov will be terrible before it was released to Singularity and Tranquility. I'm always eager to learn and read up on these things. So please, link me some threads that support your claim. Happy reading. http://eve-search.com/thread/1178912-0/page/12 http://eve-search.com/thread/1175850-0 Read through those threadnaughts, then read this one. If it doesn't give you a sense of deja vu you ain't human.
FT Diomedes The Graduates Forged of Fire 864	Posted - 2015.03.12 00:37:13 - [1734] - Quote Disclaimer: everything below is from a grunt's perspective in Dominion Sov warfare. Others may know more about actual decisions various parties made. People are missing the reason why null sec has been stagnant. It's not so much that Dominion sovereignty was that terrible for the participants (if you used proper tools, i.e. Dreadnoughts, it was not that bad at all). When we fought in Tenal in 2012, there were lots of good fights, we sacrificed a few dozen Drake fleets and a couple of Titans, we wore the enemy down, then they gave up and we reinforced all the things. It was not bad at all. The following summer we fought in Fountain and there were good, big fights. There were also horrible fights with large numbers of slow cats on each side. Then we went to Delve and life started to stink... Due to the threat of Supercapital hot drops on our Dreadnoughts, and the need to develop more FC's, we ground Delve in stealth bombers. That sucked. We did the same through the Halloween war, until towards the end when we got B-R and other good fights. After B-R, the large blocs voluntarily gave up the sov fights. This was a conscious decision and resulted in horrible stagnation. I'll say that again: the large blocs mutually agreed not to wage sov warfare. They did not want to risk Supercapital fleets (the loss of which would lead to the loss of moon and rental empires). The large blocs voluntarily started the stagnation. Why is this important? Because only large blocs will be able to seriously attack another large bloc using Trollsov. If they choose not to attack each other, because REASONS, then we are left with a Trollsov system that is even worse for small groups (who can be trolled by all and sundry) and Nullsec will still appear stagnant on the sov front. But is Eve actually stagnant right now? Meanwhile, for all the vitriol directed at space aids, it did allow regional conflicts to be fun again (at least in Fountain). I've used my Dreadnoughts and Titan more in the past five months than I did at any point previously in Eve (and in relatively small fights as true force multipliers). We had great fights in southern Fountain in December and January. Small gang fights through NPC null and WH's have been great. N3 has been great about dropping Supercapitals on our roaming T1 cruiser gangs in Delve. Life is good. From what I have seen, life is good elsewhere too. And now you want to screw that up with this nonsense? If you want to break up the big blocs, you cannot. N+1 is always better than N. No mechanic, short of deus ex machina killing the "+1," will work. Deus ex machina is the antithesis of sandbox (see e.g. T20). So give it a rest... The Greatest Ship Ever. Credit to Shahfluffers.
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 682	Posted - 2015.03.12 00:39:27 - [1735] - Quote i do like that sov defenders aren't allowed to use force multipliers but god forbid attackers lose their ability to use force multipliers
Basil Pupkin Why So Platypus 133	Posted - 2015.03.12 00:48:30 - [1736] - Quote Goon tears in 1 line : "Bawwwwww Fozzie how dare you make it so we can be harassed a little bit while rolling the whole eve for free". Seriously, this system is so severely biased for goons I wonder who actually came up with it. A crap ton equals 1000 crap loads in metric, and roughly 91 shit loads 12 bull shits and 1 puppy's unforeseen disaster in imperial.
Alavaria Fera GoonWaffe 6619	Posted - 2015.03.12 00:53:45 - [1737] - Quote FT Diomedes wrote: Why is this important? Because only large blocs will be able to seriously attack another large bloc using Trollsov. If they choose not to attack each other, because REASONS, then we are left with a Trollsov system that is even worse for small groups (who can be trolled by all and sundry) and Nullsec will still appear stagnant on the sov front. Not as long as the smal groups don't have any sov and only want to end the sov of the big groups eg: massdeath of moa will end us just because apparently moa are the best paid mercs 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.
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 685	Posted - 2015.03.12 01:05:16 - [1738] - Quote Basil Pupkin wrote: Seriously, this system is so severely biased for goons I wonder who actually came up with it. agreed, for this reason we need to ensure interceptors cannot use entosis links
SilentAsTheGrave Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective 108	Posted - 2015.03.12 02:13:50 - [1739] - Quote Jenn aSide wrote: SilentAsTheGrave wrote: Jenn aSide wrote: And I'm not kidding, this discussion was the exact same before dominion, with people (like goons) telling everyone "we will use this to make your game experience suck" and legions of short-sighted utopians on the other side proclaiming "this will be great, those big alliances are gonna get what's coming to them!!". [Citation Needed] Not to be ignored is Dominion sov was shipped unfinished due to CCP focusing heavy development on World of Darkness and Dust 514. I'm serious. I really would like to see some legitimate links to some threads where the masses were chanting this will be the end of goons and goons saying Dominion sov will be terrible before it was released to Singularity and Tranquility. I'm always eager to learn and read up on these things. So please, link me some threads that support your claim. Happy reading. http://eve-search.com/thread/1178912-0/page/12 http://eve-search.com/thread/1175850-0 Read through those threadnaughts, then read this one. If it doesn't give you a sense of deja vu you ain't human. Bonus, a nice article full of optimistic predictions http://www.tentonhammer.com/node/78225 This may have backfired on you. I'm several pages in and out of all the goon posts, all but one is very optimistic of the Dominion sov. Everyone from mittens to vile rat and some other known goon leaders were very optimistic. Shadoo's post was very cautious. Thanks for the link regardless.
Alavaria Fera GoonWaffe 6619	Posted - 2015.03.12 02:33:21 - [1740] - Quote They're rather optimistic about this too. But doubtless it's spin, or ?? (And it's mostly random cfc people here, as well) ^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears. Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.

Basil Pupkin Why So Platypus 134	Posted - 2015.03.12 02:39:34 - [1741] - Quote Promiscuous Female wrote: Basil Pupkin wrote: Seriously, this system is so severely biased for goons I wonder who actually came up with it. agreed, for this reason we need to ensure interceptors cannot use entosis links For this reason this system needs to be rethinked from the ground up, without participation of CCPeople who are know as goon lap dogs. A crap ton equals 1000 crap loads in metric, and roughly 91 shit loads 12 bull shits and 1 puppy's unforeseen disaster in imperial.
Alavaria Fera GoonWaffe 6619	Posted - 2015.03.12 02:47:25 - [1742] - Quote Basil Pupkin wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: Basil Pupkin wrote: Seriously, this system is so severely biased for goons I wonder who actually came up with it. agreed, for this reason we need to ensure interceptors cannot use entosis links For this reason this system needs to be rethinked from the ground up, without participation of CCPeople who are know as goon lap dogs. Basically, you want a "discussion" that's just all of you having 0.0 fantasies about ending evil cfc So a hilarious echochamber "discussion". Go have it on reddit or something You're likely to just get whatever has been planned anyway, since I doubt they'll change much so might as well begin planning out your interceptor fits and start buying so you won't have to when everything is overpriced just before/after the patch ^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears. Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 685	Posted - 2015.03.12 02:56:37 - [1743] - Quote Basil Pupkin wrote: For this reason this system needs to be rethinked from the ground up, without participation of CCPeople who are know as goon lap dogs. under no circumstances should you ever drink bleach please do not stand up from your computer, root around under the kitchen sink, find a big white bleach bottle, and go to town on that bad boy just dont even think about it its a bad idea
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 685	Posted - 2015.03.12 02:59:13 - [1744] - Quote http://i.imgur.com/2Q5eKBf.jpg no stop it what are you doing PLEASE NO DON'T DO THIS AAAAAAA
Alavaria Fera GoonWaffe 6619	Posted - 2015.03.12 03:01:14 - [1745] - Quote Promiscuous Female wrote: http://i.imgur.com/2Q5eKBf.jpg no stop it what are you doing PLEASE NO DON'T DO THIS AAAAAAA It's the sound of our 0.0 dream being taken away by massadeath's terrifyingly huge sov laser ^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears. Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
bobjoe9 Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State 0	Posted - 2015.03.12 03:02:09 - [1746] - Quote If alliances are holding to much sov(they are for renting reasons) why not just ban renting sov in the EULA/TOS. No reason to hold 80+ systems anymore instead of making alliances defend sov for 4 hours a day when most people only play for a few hours a day.
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 685	Posted - 2015.03.12 03:03:18 - [1747] - Quote bobjoe9 wrote: If alliances are holding to much sov(they are for renting reasons) why not just ban renting sov in the EULA/TOS. No reason to hold 80+ systems anymore instead of making alliances defend sov for 4 hours a day when most people only play for a few hours a day. if only unfortunately ccp has a hard-on for renters
Basil Pupkin Why So Platypus 134	Posted - 2015.03.12 03:07:27 - [1748] - Quote Alavaria Fera wrote: Basically, you want a "discussion" that's just all of you having 0.0 fantasies about ending evil cfc So a hilarious echochamber "discussion". Go have it on reddit or something You're likely to just get whatever has been planned anyway, since I doubt they'll change much so might as well begin planning out your interceptor fits and start buying so you won't have to when everything is overpriced just before/after the patch I don't want a discussion. I want a system not made for one coalition, not made by people who balance the game exclusively in the interest of the said coalition. A crap ton equals 1000 crap loads in metric, and roughly 91 shit loads 12 bull shits and 1 puppy's unforeseen disaster in imperial.
Alavaria Fera GoonWaffe 6619	Posted - 2015.03.12 03:08:03 - [1749] - Quote bobjoe9 wrote: If alliances are holding to much sov(they are for renting reasons) why not just ban renting sov in the EULA/TOS. No reason to hold 80+ systems anymore instead of making alliances defend sov for 4 hours a day when most people only play for a few hours a day. This would be great. ^^ 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 6619	Posted - 2015.03.12 03:09:18 - [1750] - Quote Basil Pupkin wrote: Alavaria Fera wrote: Basically, you want a "discussion" that's just all of you having 0.0 fantasies about ending evil cfc So a hilarious echochamber "discussion". Go have it on reddit or something You're likely to just get whatever has been planned anyway, since I doubt they'll change much so might as well begin planning out your interceptor fits and start buying so you won't have to when everything is overpriced just before/after the patch I don't want a discussion. I want a system not made for one coalition, not made by people who balance the game exclusively in the interest of the said coalition. Yes,true: the removal of us from discussion is only means to an end ie a system that makes it as easy as possible for people like you to end 0.0 dream of people like us. How about a magic button in jita that drops all sov ^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears. Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.

Kristian Hackett Alpha Republic - Transcenders of Space and Time Solyaris Chtonium 46	Posted - 2015.03.12 03:10:13 - [1751] - Quote The amount of laughs I'm getting from the "wah no interceptors" crowd is amazing. There's a bajillion ways to deal with interceptors, be it a single one or a full fleet of them. Needless to say, for those of your worried about a full fleet of interceptors, if you don't have the manpower to protect your core systems from that there's a bigger issue at hand. You need to deal with a bunch of interceptors trolling your system, build a freaking kill squad! Cruor + Garmur for tackle, then something to lay on the DPS (drone cruiser would be a great option here) and a logi just to play it safe. 4 ships, and you can go around swatting ceptors like a Japanese Giant Hornet through a hive of honey bees. Aircraft Maintenance - Using a high school diploma to fix what a college degree just f**ed up. "Life is too short to drink cheap beer."*
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 685	Posted - 2015.03.12 03:19:52 - [1752] - Quote Kristian Hackett wrote: The amount of laughs I'm getting from the "wah no interceptors" crowd is amazing. There's a bajillion ways to deal with interceptors, be it a single one or a full fleet of them. Needless to say, for those of your worried about a full fleet of interceptors, if you don't have the manpower to protect your core systems from that there's a bigger issue at hand. You need to deal with a bunch of interceptors trolling your system, build a freaking kill squad! Cruor + Garmur for tackle, then something to lay on the DPS (drone cruiser would be a great option here) and a logi just to play it safe. 4 ships, and you can go around swatting ceptors like a Japanese Giant Hornet through a hive of honey bees. interceptors hold still and allow themselves to be destroyed in my fantasies too, how bizarre
Basil Pupkin Why So Platypus 134	Posted - 2015.03.12 03:27:04 - [1753] - Quote Alavaria Fera wrote: Basil Pupkin wrote: Alavaria Fera wrote: Basically, you want a "discussion" that's just all of you having 0.0 fantasies about ending evil cfc So a hilarious echochamber "discussion". Go have it on reddit or something You're likely to just get whatever has been planned anyway, since I doubt they'll change much so might as well begin planning out your interceptor fits and start buying so you won't have to when everything is overpriced just before/after the patch I don't want a discussion. I want a system not made for one coalition, not made by people who balance the game exclusively in the interest of the said coalition. Yes,true: the removal of us from discussion is only means to an end ie a system that makes it as easy as possible for people like you to end 0.0 dream of people like us. How about a magic button in jita that drops all sov Aside from incredible amount of self-entitlement and claims to be better than me, you seem to have yet another self-entitlement that everyone wants to end your whatever. Nobody would've cared about you if not for constant tears you jerk over getting more than anyone else for free from CCP. Now you tear-jerked a system which is exclusively biased for goons. I don't want your removal from discussion, I want a system not biased for one coalition, regardless of which one it is. I admit I'd be less involved if the said coalition weren't the coalition of third biggest dicks in eve, but that doesn't change the reasoning I'm against it. A crap ton equals 1000 crap loads in metric, and roughly 91 shit loads 12 bull shits and 1 puppy's unforeseen disaster in imperial.
Kristian Hackett Alpha Republic - Transcenders of Space and Time Solyaris Chtonium 46	Posted - 2015.03.12 03:29:23 - [1754] - Quote Promiscuous Female wrote: Kristian Hackett wrote: The amount of laughs I'm getting from the "wah no interceptors" crowd is amazing. There's a bajillion ways to deal with interceptors, be it a single one or a full fleet of them. Needless to say, for those of your worried about a full fleet of interceptors, if you don't have the manpower to protect your core systems from that there's a bigger issue at hand. You need to deal with a bunch of interceptors trolling your system, build a freaking kill squad! Cruor + Garmur for tackle, then something to lay on the DPS (drone cruiser would be a great option here) and a logi just to play it safe. 4 ships, and you can go around swatting ceptors like a Japanese Giant Hornet through a hive of honey bees. interceptors hold still and allow themselves to be destroyed in my fantasies too, how bizarre You do realize that you can catch an interceptor that's running an Entosis Link, right? They have to sit in range of the structure while the cycle runs, so if a Garmur can land mid cycle AT ZERO on grid, all it has to do is OH a WD2 and bam, Interceptor isn't warping off, and it can OH a MWD and close faster than the interceptor can react. At 13.6km it can apply a WS2 and that Interceptor might as well be standing still. At MOST the interceptor has 10 seconds from the time it can see the Garmur on D-scan to GTFO, but once you factor in "being human" you're really only looking at maybe 6-7 seconds to get out of the high speed orbit to warping out. Seems like a lot of time, until you start figuring in server connection latency and then suddenly you're looking at a very tight window in which you can run away. Aircraft Maintenance - Using a high school diploma to fix what a college degree just f**ed up. "Life is too short to drink cheap beer."*
SilentAsTheGrave Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective 109	Posted - 2015.03.12 03:35:27 - [1755] - Quote Is there a way we can shift the focus of the thread towards anything BUT interceptors for a while? Between the two threads; over 4,000 posts have been nothing but interceptor stuff. Everyone and their brother knows about the interceptor deal! We would be doing ourselves a great disservice if we did not take some time to talk about the other aspects of the Entosis Link.
Alavaria Fera GoonWaffe 6619	Posted - 2015.03.12 03:38:17 - [1756] - Quote Kristian Hackett wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: Kristian Hackett wrote: The amount of laughs I'm getting from the "wah no interceptors" crowd is amazing. There's a bajillion ways to deal with interceptors, be it a single one or a full fleet of them. Needless to say, for those of your worried about a full fleet of interceptors, if you don't have the manpower to protect your core systems from that there's a bigger issue at hand. You need to deal with a bunch of interceptors trolling your system, build a freaking kill squad! Cruor + Garmur for tackle, then something to lay on the DPS (drone cruiser would be a great option here) and a logi just to play it safe. 4 ships, and you can go around swatting ceptors like a Japanese Giant Hornet through a hive of honey bees. interceptors hold still and allow themselves to be destroyed in my fantasies too, how bizarre You do realize that you can catch an interceptor that's running an Entosis Link, right? They have to sit in range of the structure while the cycle runs, so if a Garmur can land mid cycle AT ZERO on grid, all it has to do is OH a WD2 and bam, Interceptor isn't warping off, and it can OH a MWD and close faster than the interceptor can react. At 13.6km it can apply a WS2 and that Interceptor might as well be standing still. At MOST the interceptor has 10 seconds from the time it can see the Garmur on D-scan to GTFO, but once you factor in "being human" you're really only looking at maybe 6-7 seconds to get out of the high speed orbit to warping out. Seems like a lot of time, until you start figuring in server connection latency and then suddenly you're looking at a very tight window in which you can run away. Hah someone missed the point about moving to the next objective basically the point about trollceptors ^^ 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 6619	Posted - 2015.03.12 03:39:05 - [1757] - Quote SilentAsTheGrave wrote: Is there a way we can shift the focus of the thread towards anything BUT interceptors for a while? Between the two threads; over 4,000 posts have been nothing but interceptor stuff. Everyone and their brother knows about the interceptor deal! We would be doing ourselves a great disservice if we did not take some time to talk about the other aspects of the Entosis Link. The aspect where it goes on an interceptor is very important. ^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears. Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
Petrified Old and Petrified Syndication TOG - The Older Gamers Alliance 234	Posted - 2015.03.12 03:44:11 - [1758] - Quote After further mulling over the changes and the feedback of others more experienced in Sov warfare both under the current mechanics and the older mechanics I have the following thoughts to toss into the ring: Grinding Sov was and still is an annoying and un-enjoyable experience. The Enosis module is a good start towards reducing grind and the need for massive super capital fleets. No one likes losing things in their sleep. Real life should always be more important and the game's mechanics should respect that. For people depriving someone else of a structure (TCU, IHUB, or Station), the process should not be a simple matter, but neither should it be laborious. While Sov was not designed for small corporations or a handful of people, it should not require huge numbers across multiple time zones to manage and maintain. Sov of one system or station should not be dependent on 'nodes' outside the system in question. The defender should always have the home court advantage - it is their structure being defended. Additionally smaller entities are placed into an immediate disadvantage when attempting to take Sov from a larger group or defending Sov from a larger group if they have to run to multiple systems in a Constellation to capture points. Their fewer numbers already place them at a disadvantage - don't make it worse. However, you also want to spread fights out. Each system in a Constellation held by the same defending alliance can spawn the Command Nodes despite the originating system. If the Alliance only holds one system in a Constellation, then only that system spawns the Command Nodes. While this does not prevent a large buildup of an invading force in a system, it does prevent a smaller force from losing Sov of a system because they were unable to reach a command node several systems away they had no stake in controlling. People should be able to initially attack in their own time zone but the defender should be able to dictate when reinforce occurs. POCOs have struck me as a good example of meeting this. Prime Time (usually when the alliance as a whole is mostly online and playing any given day) will not be important to vulnerability, but for when reinforce exits. Therefore (All ideas assume the current mechanics proposed by Fossie except otherwise noted): 1 - Base capture rate for a single Entosis module should be 30 minutes with diminishing returns for additional ships applying the link to no less than 10 minutes. These times do not reflect occupancy bonuses which could push it to between 40 and 2 hours. 2 - Base capture rate outside the Prime Time should be multiplied by x8 while capture rate is normal during prime time. If the capture attempt is not interrupted when Prime time is entered, then the capture rate returns to normal and all existing time spent during the capture is adjusted. So if a single sub-cap was applying a link for 3 hours on a location and then starting the third hour the system went into the defenders prime, the remaining Entosis application time will drop from 60 more minutes to 3.25 minutes (1/8th of an hour). These times do not reflect occupancy bonuses. 3 - Only TCCUs and IHUBs are vulnerable to reinforcement 24/7 while being more vulnerable during prime time. 4 - Given the value stored within Stations, they are only vulnerable to reinforcement during Prime Time. The enabling and disabling is normal. 5 - Command nodes spawning in the Constellation: will only appear in any given the system if that system holds a structure owned by the defender at the time of reinforcement. Example: Alliance A holds all TCUs in a Constellation. Alliance B has 2 IHUBS and 1 Station across two of those systems within the Constellation. If The IHUB of Alliance B is attacked then any Command Nodes spawned will appear in the two systems Alliance B has these structures in. If the TCU of Alliance A is attacked, then the Command Nodes will appear in any of the systems in the Constellation. 6 - Command nodes only appear during the prime time of the defender.
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 685	Posted - 2015.03.12 03:57:03 - [1759] - Quote Kristian Hackett wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: Kristian Hackett wrote: The amount of laughs I'm getting from the "wah no interceptors" crowd is amazing. There's a bajillion ways to deal with interceptors, be it a single one or a full fleet of them. Needless to say, for those of your worried about a full fleet of interceptors, if you don't have the manpower to protect your core systems from that there's a bigger issue at hand. You need to deal with a bunch of interceptors trolling your system, build a freaking kill squad! Cruor + Garmur for tackle, then something to lay on the DPS (drone cruiser would be a great option here) and a logi just to play it safe. 4 ships, and you can go around swatting ceptors like a Japanese Giant Hornet through a hive of honey bees. interceptors hold still and allow themselves to be destroyed in my fantasies too, how bizarre You do realize that you can catch an interceptor that's running an Entosis Link, right? They have to sit in range of the structure while the cycle runs, so if a Garmur can land mid cycle AT ZERO on grid, all it has to do is OH a WD2 and bam, Interceptor isn't warping off, and it can OH a MWD and close faster than the interceptor can react. At 13.6km it can apply a WS2 and that Interceptor might as well be standing still. At MOST the interceptor has 10 seconds from the time it can see the Garmur on D-scan to GTFO, but once you factor in "being human" you're really only looking at maybe 6-7 seconds to get out of the high speed orbit to warping out. Seems like a lot of time, until you start figuring in server connection latency and then suddenly you're looking at a very tight window in which you can run away. every person who tries to post complicated anti-interceptor vignettes assumes the interceptor is orbiting why would you do that if no one is on grid
Princess Cherista State War Academy Caldari State 32	Posted - 2015.03.12 03:59:08 - [1760] - Quote SilentAsTheGrave wrote: Is there a way we can shift the focus of the thread towards anything BUT interceptors for a while Well its a good system except for the whole entosis link on uncatchable inties thing.

Alavaria Fera GoonWaffe 6619	Posted - 2015.03.12 04:08:01 - [1761] - Quote Promiscuous Female wrote: Kristian Hackett wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: Kristian Hackett wrote: The amount of laughs I'm getting from the "wah no interceptors" crowd is amazing. There's a bajillion ways to deal with interceptors, be it a single one or a full fleet of them. Needless to say, for those of your worried about a full fleet of interceptors, if you don't have the manpower to protect your core systems from that there's a bigger issue at hand. You need to deal with a bunch of interceptors trolling your system, build a freaking kill squad! Cruor + Garmur for tackle, then something to lay on the DPS (drone cruiser would be a great option here) and a logi just to play it safe. 4 ships, and you can go around swatting ceptors like a Japanese Giant Hornet through a hive of honey bees. interceptors hold still and allow themselves to be destroyed in my fantasies too, how bizarre You do realize that you can catch an interceptor that's running an Entosis Link, right? They have to sit in range of the structure while the cycle runs, so if a Garmur can land mid cycle AT ZERO on grid, all it has to do is OH a WD2 and bam, Interceptor isn't warping off, and it can OH a MWD and close faster than the interceptor can react. At 13.6km it can apply a WS2 and that Interceptor might as well be standing still. At MOST the interceptor has 10 seconds from the time it can see the Garmur on D-scan to GTFO, but once you factor in "being human" you're really only looking at maybe 6-7 seconds to get out of the high speed orbit to warping out. Seems like a lot of time, until you start figuring in server connection latency and then suddenly you're looking at a very tight window in which you can run away. every person who tries to post complicated anti-interceptor vignettes assumes the interceptor is orbiting why would you do that if no one is on grid It's basically like a stawman, except we can call it "the easily caught inty" ^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears. Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
Miner Hottie Valar Morghulis. Goonswarm Federation 80	Posted - 2015.03.12 04:47:59 - [1762] - Quote Ok, couple of points to make: Wannabe EFT warriors with their gimmick sniper fits, learn about the difference between "paper dps" being the raw damage potential of the hull, weapon system, ammo, skills, implants and environmental effects and "applied dps" which is the above apply to a target which is doing something other than being an immoble target without resists and having the sig radius of an outpost. Putting the sniper eagle fit into eft and using long range faction ammo realises about 7 dps applied on a 4kms stileto that has good transversal, and that is at optimal range. No icant link the dps graph as I am at work, learn to use the dps graph yourself. Others have pointed out gimmick faction frigate and T3 destroyer fits that can catch these interceptors. These work better, but seem to hilariously relc on landing at 0 on the inty or rely on it dumbly orbiting a TCU. Also, dont claim you can probe it down and kill it with x pimp fit frigate when the frigate lacks a probe launcher. Not going to happen (well it will with some goons being terriblel) point is you have to close range to 20-24km with an interceptor to tacklet it, closer if you want to web it. A dram can do 8kms, it will still only close at 4kms if our inty pilot aligns off into space. Assume our inty started 110km from the drams warp in it will take at least 22 seconds to get into scram range and needs another 10 seconds to really apply dps. You duke it out and maybe 2 minutes later its done. Op success! Killmails and gf. Your dram docks up and repairs mods overheated and heads back out to chase down another inty. 2 systems over and 5 minutes later, the dram lands on grid aligns and burns to our next inty, but 21 seconds later the inty warps off. Entosis cycle complete, troll face on. Now the dram can't do crap to catch the inty because it warps and aligns faster and is immume to bubbles. Multiply that by a fleet of 255 inties and telll me you will harvest kill mails? You probably will for a day or 2 then spend time uselessly capping sov nodes. What if the fleet comes back with 200 inties and a wing of dictors Svipuls, Keres and Daredevils to counter defenders in gimmick fit frigates? First hostile gate camp your defender dram runs into will kill in a heartbeat (ok 3 hearbeats cause no goon has less than 60 heartbeats per minute). Really the point we goons are driving home is this on any scale above a 1v1 fight the inty is just too fast, agile, too small and evasive to not dictate if and when it fights and this is with the benefit of experience we have fighting inty gangs on our home turf. It's all about how hot my mining lasers get.
Kristian Hackett Alpha Republic - Transcenders of Space and Time Solyaris Chtonium 46	Posted - 2015.03.12 04:55:17 - [1763] - Quote Petrified wrote: Sov of one system or station should not be dependent on 'nodes' outside the system in question. The defender should always have the home court advantage - it is their structure being defended. Additionally smaller entities are placed into an immediate disadvantage when attempting to take Sov from a larger group or defending Sov from a larger group if they have to run to multiple systems in a Constellation to capture points. Their fewer numbers already place them at a disadvantage - don't make it worse. I wanted to highlight this - of all of the mechanics coming into play, the constellation nodes seemed to be the most awkward one. I understand CCP wanting to spread the fight throughout multiple systems in order to ease server load, however that immediately screws over the defending team, especially if you have multiple alliances (read: not blue to each other) sharing the same constellation. Why should I have to drive deep into enemy territory in order to save my one structure? I should have to scramble to hit control nodes within the same system, not get ganked at a gate camp next door. A better mechanic is if CCP uses the Entosis Link activation to automatically ramp up an automatic process of reinforcing the node should high levels of ship movement be detected in nearby nodes (or if say, an Entosis Link activates followed by a Cyno being lit). It might be uglier having to code that on the back end, but it's better than the currently suggested mechanic. Aircraft Maintenance - Using a high school diploma to fix what a college degree just f**ed up. "Life is too short to drink cheap beer."*
Querns GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 1464	Posted - 2015.03.12 05:10:48 - [1764] - Quote Kristian Hackett wrote: I wanted to highlight this - of all of the mechanics coming into play, the constellation nodes seemed to be the most awkward one. I understand CCP wanting to spread the fight throughout multiple systems in order to ease server load, however that immediately screws over the defending team, especially if you have multiple alliances (read: not blue to each other) sharing the same constellation. This is pretty offtopic for the entosis link thread, specifically, but you do raise an excellent point. I agree that capture nodes should prefer to spawn in systems in the constellation where the defending alliance has least one sovereignty object (ihub, tcu, station.) I will remember this when more relevant forum threads arise on the topic of capture nodes, and pass it along to the Goonswarm Federation CSM reps as well. It's not to steal your thunder, or anything, but I feel like it's a legitimate concern and it'd be a shame if you, specifically, missed the thread, forgot, or otherwise were unavailable to reiterate the point. This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
Miner Hottie Valar Morghulis. Goonswarm Federation 81	Posted - 2015.03.12 05:21:20 - [1765] - Quote Querns wrote: Kristian Hackett wrote: I wanted to highlight this - of all of the mechanics coming into play, the constellation nodes seemed to be the most awkward one. I understand CCP wanting to spread the fight throughout multiple systems in order to ease server load, however that immediately screws over the defending team, especially if you have multiple alliances (read: not blue to each other) sharing the same constellation. This is pretty offtopic for the entosis link thread, specifically, but you do raise an excellent point. I agree that capture nodes should prefer to spawn in systems in the constellation where the defending alliance has least one sovereignty object (ihub, tcu, station.) I will remember this when more relevant forum threads arise on the topic of capture nodes, and pass it along to the Goonswarm Federation CSM reps as well. It's not to steal your thunder, or anything, but I feel like it's a legitimate concern and it'd be a shame if you, specifically, missed the thread, forgot, or otherwise were unavailable to reiterate the point. I think this feature is purely there to spread server load, rather than any compelling gameplay issue. From memory that was the reason noted in the dev blog. I hope I am wrong cause its a terrible reason to spread the capture nodes around a constellation. It's all about how hot my mining lasers get.
Zhalon Forging Industries Silent Infinity 48	Posted - 2015.03.12 06:01:30 - [1766] - Quote I was worried there would be no more capital fights....but then... Screw evasion fits....super carriers are the dominate force. Massive sensor strength = ECM less effective Massive targeting range = Sensor Damp unrealistic Wait wait wait....they're immune to electronic warfare silly me Massive tank... Massive utility....reship to go catch that pesky evasion interceptor And the biggest thing of all....Remote ECM Burst ....of course the big guys with a super carrier will carry the day against any smaller force (smaller meaning subcap) I imagine one super carrier could solo cap a node in 70% of cases. 1 super carrier plus friend or two able to refit to chase down a guy capping outside the 150 km remote ecm burst range would make it 90%. Even the fittings for that super carrier could be dirt cheap. Wouldn't need expensive fighters/bombers unless you thought you were gonna get dropped on....and if they do they better bring enough dps to drop you in that short timer cap window. Aeon > Wyvern > Nyx > Hel
Kristian Hackett Alpha Republic - Transcenders of Space and Time Solyaris Chtonium 46	Posted - 2015.03.12 06:21:38 - [1767] - Quote Miner Hottie wrote: Querns wrote: Kristian Hackett wrote: I wanted to highlight this - of all of the mechanics coming into play, the constellation nodes seemed to be the most awkward one. I understand CCP wanting to spread the fight throughout multiple systems in order to ease server load, however that immediately screws over the defending team, especially if you have multiple alliances (read: not blue to each other) sharing the same constellation. This is pretty offtopic for the entosis link thread, specifically, but you do raise an excellent point. I agree that capture nodes should prefer to spawn in systems in the constellation where the defending alliance has least one sovereignty object (ihub, tcu, station.) I will remember this when more relevant forum threads arise on the topic of capture nodes, and pass it along to the Goonswarm Federation CSM reps as well. It's not to steal your thunder, or anything, but I feel like it's a legitimate concern and it'd be a shame if you, specifically, missed the thread, forgot, or otherwise were unavailable to reiterate the point. I think this feature is purely there to spread server load, rather than any compelling gameplay issue. From memory that was the reason noted in the dev blog. I hope I am wrong cause its a terrible reason to spread the capture nodes around a constellation. In the initial dev blog I read on the mechanic, spreading the server load was precisely the reason for the constellation-wide control node spawns. While I can agree with the logic from a technical perspective, looking at the game play it's going to be an absolute nightmare. Getting back to the Entosis Link module, I've got a few thoughts on this just to summarize after the past 7 or 8 pages of conversation: 1) Entosis Link modules should be able to be fit to all ships, from Rookie Ships to Titans. 2) The 80km/250km proposed ranges of the T1/T2 modules are fine as is. 3) T2 modules should be limited to larger hulls, such as BCs and up. 4) T1 module cycle time should be locked at 10 minutes and come with a penalty allowing no prop mods while active. 5) T2 module cycle time should be 3 minutes base / 2 minutes on ships capable of fitting warfare link modules. Overall, that should about cover the full range of issues raised here. It'll keep the evasion fit Interceptors and T3s from becoming too overpowered while not completely cutting them out of the picture. The BC and up requirement for the T2 EL means we're not going to completely ditch the larger ship fleets, while the time modifier means BCs and Command Ships will have a larger role to play in the fleets. Overall this would probably be the ideal compromise to satisfy everyone. Aircraft Maintenance - Using a high school diploma to fix what a college degree just f**ed up. "Life is too short to drink cheap beer."*
SilentAsTheGrave Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective 109	Posted - 2015.03.12 06:31:12 - [1768] - Quote Princess Cherista wrote: SilentAsTheGrave wrote: Is there a way we can shift the focus of the thread towards anything BUT interceptors for a while Well its a good system except for the whole entosis link on uncatchable inties thing. So aside from interceptors; you are saying the Entosis Link module is perfect? If not, then what needs work?
Zappity Stay Frosty. A Band Apart. 1856	Posted - 2015.03.12 06:44:30 - [1769] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Zappity wrote: baltec1 wrote: This is why people with zero experience with sov warfare should not be in this thread. This is wrong. The fact that you do not find the current, broken sov system interesting and worth getting invested in should not exclude you from commenting on the new system, which will hopefully repair some of that brokenness. Otherwise the only feedback will be from people who find the current system acceptable. When have we ever said we find the current situation acceptable? You actions state that you find the current situation acceptable - you do sov currently. Acceptable means it is good enough to participate in. This does not mean there is no room for improvement. 'Unacceptable' means that you do not think the current system is enjoyable or rewarding enough to participate in. Hence, you find the current system acceptable. Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec.
Lena Lazair Khanid Irregulars Khanid's Legion 427	Posted - 2015.03.12 06:49:36 - [1770] - Quote FT Diomedes wrote: Why is this important? Because only large blocs will be able to seriously attack another large bloc using Trollsov. If they choose not to attack each other, because REASONS, then we are left with a Trollsov system that is even worse for small groups (who can be trolled by all and sundry) and Nullsec will still appear stagnant on the sov front. But is Eve actually stagnant right now? Not only is this important, it's fundamental. However, the idea that ANY large bloc would be able to refrain from attacking each other once trollsov goes live is simply laughable. The decision will no longer be in the hands of bloc leaders because it will no longer be relegated to a relatively small group of cap pilots flying ships very few people can afford to individually lose without SRP/alliance support. The decision will be made by line members flying cheap subcaps doing serious sov damage and/or provoking routine fights with formerly blue neighbors because they are bored and tired of stagnant null. The moment they realize that standings the diplos have set mean squat, 80% of coalition PvP pilots will be rolling the sov of anyone not wearing their alliance tag. And there's nothing their alliance can do to prevent this. Kicking these folks will merely serve to weaken that alliance's ability to defend sov while simultaneously adding to the numbers of ronin intimately familiar with local geography. Each and every one of them capable of contesting sov in a relatively meaningful way and now pissed at the alliance that just kicked them merely for the desire of finding fights nearby with groups they mostly already don't like. Probably the funniest part of this change is the number of people that seem to have forgotten their alliances are NOT made up predominantly of people with capital ships or the budget to lose those ships on their own whims. Pilots who don't actually need or care about 20m ratting ticks in a Nyx with perfect IHUB upgrades in a system. These are the faceless line members making up a huge portion of your numbers that will suddenly have the tools to contest sov whenever they want in the cheapest ships available; SRP and diplos be damned. Goon core should do well as usual, BRAVE, etc., but everyone better be taking a serious look at their demographics if you think you will have ANY chance to control who your line members are attacking once this change goes live. And best of all, if this DOESN'T happen, it will expose baldly the lie of nullbears claiming that they are tired of stagnant null. It will be in the hands of each and every 2 month old pilot with a hangar of subcaps to vote with their sovlasers, so to speak, as to whether or not null should remain blue and stagnant. Bloc leaders will have pretty much no say in this choice.

Miner Hottie Valar Morghulis. Goonswarm Federation 81	Posted - 2015.03.12 07:27:57 - [1771] - Quote Zappity wrote: baltec1 wrote: Zappity wrote: baltec1 wrote: This is why people with zero experience with sov warfare should not be in this thread. This is wrong. The fact that you do not find the current, broken sov system interesting and worth getting invested in should not exclude you from commenting on the new system, which will hopefully repair some of that brokenness. Otherwise the only feedback will be from people who find the current system acceptable. When have we ever said we find the current situation acceptable? You actions state that you find the current situation acceptable - you do sov currently. Acceptable means it is good enough to participate in. This does not mean there is no room for improvement. 'Unacceptable' means that you do not think the current system is enjoyable or rewarding enough to participate in. Hence, you find the current system acceptable. You are myopic. The system is unacceptable because you can hold and control sov without living in it or very close to it. The fact we "do it properly by living in our sov" doesn't imply it is acceptable or right at all. I find the panel damage on my car unacceptable, doesn't stop me driving it to work every day. Ninja edit: I find the inability of people to understand why troll interceptors are overpowered to be unacceptable. Doesn't stop me posting about it or using them if they make it on to TQ as is. It's all about how hot my mining lasers get.
Philip Ogtaulmolfi Signal Cartel EvE-Scout Enclave 1	Posted - 2015.03.12 07:32:18 - [1772] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Most systems wont even take 20 min to knock over. Also the fact that the only answer you have involves no fights and no kills shows just how horrible it will be countering swarms of these things for 4 hours a day every day for year after year. If it takes less than 20 minutes to RF the structure the only one to blame is the defender. Remember, this is occupancy Sov. If I can't take my system around the 25-30 minutes capture time I am not occupaing it. And you keep talking about 4 hours. It is going to be 10-15 minutes, shared between 20 pilots, while at the same to we are doing something more fun. And I really think trollceptors will get bored after a month of doing nothing. Any alliance really trying to take or ruin sovereignity is going to send something more effective.
Miner Hottie Valar Morghulis. Goonswarm Federation 81	Posted - 2015.03.12 07:41:13 - [1773] - Quote Philip Ogtaulmolfi wrote: baltec1 wrote: Most systems wont even take 20 min to knock over. Also the fact that the only answer you have involves no fights and no kills shows just how horrible it will be countering swarms of these things for 4 hours a day every day for year after year. If it takes less than 20 minutes to RF the structure the only one to blame is the defender. Remember, this is occupancy Sov. If I can't take my system around the 25-30 minutes capture time I am not occupaing it. And you keep talking about 4 hours. It is going to be 10-15 minutes, shared between 20 pilots, while at the same to we are doing something more fun. And I really think trollceptors will get bored after a month of doing nothing. Any alliance really trying to take or ruin sovereignity is going to send something more effective. Tell me about all those lived in systems with industry index at 5? oh yeah, there arent many at all. Score 1 to baltec1. 2 the CFC reinforced Fountain in bombers. You significantly underestimate our masochistic nature. We will burn all the sov. It's all about how hot my mining lasers get.
Carniflex StarHunt Mordus Angels 334	Posted - 2015.03.12 08:27:21 - [1774] - Quote baltec1 wrote: PotatoOverdose wrote: A max speed garmur or dramiel is faster than any ceptor under equivalent conditions. Fact. It has a 110km head start, it starts burning the second it sees you on its D-scan, it will be 200km away at the very least when you meet it. No, you won't catch it. It is not trivial but I believe it can be done. For a static sov structure (as trollceptors could be mostly an issue for generating gazillion timers) anyone living in that system would have a set of tactical bookmarks. A typical trollceptor would be [Stiletto, trollceptor] Overdrive Injector System II Overdrive Injector System II Nanofiber Internal Structure II 1MN Microwarpdrive II Sensor Booster II, Targeting Range Script Sensor Booster II, Targeting Range Script Sensor Booster II, Targeting Range Script [Sov Laser II] [empty high slot] [empty high slot] Small Ionic Field Projector II Small Ionic Field Projector II 135 km lock range, 5.2 km/s speed 1900 ehp (not cap stable but lets pretend it is). On average, when you warp in on it it would have 60 seconds of the timer remaining. Assuming it picks you up ~10 sec before your land on grid and you warp at zero on the structure it could be, at most indeed at 200 km from the structure, however, with a reasonable set of bookmarks (say, 12 of them or so) it would be trivial to land roughly in front of it somewhere at 50 to 100 km mark. within ~10 seconds - it would have on average 50 seconds of timer remaining. If you landed at ~50 in front of it it would be within your range probably before it could reliably turn around or change direction sufficiently. At ~100 km mark with it traveling in your direction you probably might catch it within 50 seconds it has remaining. However, going actually faster than a Stiletto with two overdrives and nano is not an easy feat. Garmur with 2x Overdrive II, Nanofibre II + T2 aux thrusters and Polycarbon engine housing is still 13 m/s slower than that stiletto (all lev 5 no extra boosts) Oversize MWD cynabal would do it but it would not have enough agility (because of extra mass) to follow that interceptor if it figures out that this cynabal coming after it at 7.5 km/s must be using oversize MWD and takes a sharp turn. Speed fit Dramiel would be approx 600 m/s faster that troll stiletto (2x overdrive ii, 1x nano ii, polycarbon housing t2) with both at T2 mwd. At 600 m/s speed difference we are looking only at spatial span of 30 km over 50 second time interval. In practice this means that on average one should catch a trollceptor in a speedfit dramiel if landing roughly in front of it at a distance less than 60 km (taking into account the possible maneuvers troll stiletto would be capable of doing to avoid ending up within a long point range plus approx 500 ms reaction time) So what I am trying to say is that catching one of those by just running it down in faster ship is not an trivial task, however, it is not an impossible task by any means as far as I can see. Here, sanity... niiiice sanity, come to daddy... okay, that's a good sanity... THWONK! GOT the bastard.
Kristian Hackett Alpha Republic - Transcenders of Space and Time Solyaris Chtonium 47	Posted - 2015.03.12 08:43:47 - [1775] - Quote Carniflex wrote: baltec1 wrote: PotatoOverdose wrote: A max speed garmur or dramiel is faster than any ceptor under equivalent conditions. Fact. It has a 110km head start, it starts burning the second it sees you on its D-scan, it will be 200km away at the very least when you meet it. No, you won't catch it. It is not trivial but I believe it can be done. For a static sov structure (as trollceptors could be mostly an issue for generating gazillion timers) anyone living in that system would have a set of tactical bookmarks. A typical trollceptor would be [Stiletto, trollceptor] Overdrive Injector System II Overdrive Injector System II Nanofiber Internal Structure II 1MN Microwarpdrive II Sensor Booster II, Targeting Range Script Sensor Booster II, Targeting Range Script Sensor Booster II, Targeting Range Script [Sov Laser II] [empty high slot] [empty high slot] Small Ionic Field Projector II Small Ionic Field Projector II 135 km lock range, 5.2 km/s speed 1900 ehp (not cap stable but lets pretend it is). On average, when you warp in on it it would have 60 seconds of the timer remaining. Assuming it picks you up ~10 sec before your land on grid and you warp at zero on the structure it could be, at most indeed at 200 km from the structure, however, with a reasonable set of bookmarks (say, 12 of them or so) it would be trivial to land roughly in front of it somewhere at 50 to 100 km mark. within ~10 seconds - it would have on average 50 seconds of timer remaining. If you landed at ~50 in front of it it would be within your range probably before it could reliably turn around or change direction sufficiently. At ~100 km mark with it traveling in your direction you probably might catch it within 50 seconds it has remaining. However, going actually faster than a Stiletto with two overdrives and nano is not an easy feat. Garmur with 2x Overdrive II, Nanofibre II + T2 aux thrusters and Polycarbon engine housing is still 13 m/s slower than that stiletto (all lev 5 no extra boosts) Oversize MWD cynabal would do it but it would not have enough agility (because of extra mass) to follow that interceptor if it figures out that this cynabal coming after it at 7.5 km/s must be using oversize MWD and takes a sharp turn. Speed fit Dramiel would be approx 600 m/s faster that troll stiletto (2x overdrive ii, 1x nano ii, polycarbon housing t2) with both at T2 mwd. At 600 m/s speed difference we are looking only at spatial span of 30 km over 50 second time interval. In practice this means that on average one should catch a trollceptor in a speedfit dramiel if landing roughly in front of it at a distance less than 60 km (taking into account the possible maneuvers troll stiletto would be capable of doing to avoid ending up within a long point range plus approx 500 ms reaction time) So what I am trying to say is that catching one of those by just running it down in faster ship is not an trivial task, however, it is not an impossible task by any means as far as I can see. Might want to check your numbers, that Stiletto is not faster than my Garmur (5154 vs 5189 - not much, but the Garmur is still the quicker...). At that range though, screw trying to catch it. I'll just get a sniper fit and shoot it. Also, I'll see your SeBo's and raise you 3x Sensor Damps on a cruiser. Whatcha gonna about that? FTR, I'm using pyfa 1.9.0 to run the numbers at level 5. Here's the faster Garmur fit for reference: [Garmur, Speed] Overdrive Injector System II Overdrive Injector System II Overdrive Injector System II 1MN Microwarpdrive II Stasis Webifier II Warp Disruptor II Warp Scrambler II Light Missile Launcher II, Scourge Precision Light Missile Light Missile Launcher II, Scourge Precision Light Missile Light Missile Launcher II, Scourge Precision Light Missile Small Auxiliary Thrusters II Small Dynamic Fuel Valve II Small Engine Thermal Shielding II Aircraft Maintenance - Using a high school diploma to fix what a college degree just f**ed up. "Life is too short to drink cheap beer."*
xttz GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 500	Posted - 2015.03.12 08:45:59 - [1776] - Quote Philip Ogtaulmolfi wrote: baltec1 wrote: Most systems wont even take 20 min to knock over. Also the fact that the only answer you have involves no fights and no kills shows just how horrible it will be countering swarms of these things for 4 hours a day every day for year after year. If it takes less than 20 minutes to RF the structure the only one to blame is the defender. Remember, this is occupancy Sov. No it isn't. The capture timer is a combination of 3 indexes, but currently only one of these is an accurate reflection of occupancy. The Strategic index increases based on the length of time the system has been owned, increasing at the same rate regardless of how the system is used. It takes over 3 months for this index to reach the max level from scratch, even if you have 1000 people in local constantly. The Industry index is linked only to mining - not all industry - and only weakly linked at that. In fact only one region in the whole game has even registered this index on an average basis, unlike the Military index. Finding null-sec systems with capture timers over 20-25 minutes will be extremely rare, and any newly taken systems that's don't inherit a strategic index from the old system will be even worse. That bodes very badly for anyone trying to shake up the nullsec status quo after the patch.
Carniflex StarHunt Mordus Angels 334	Posted - 2015.03.12 08:51:52 - [1777] - Quote Kristian Hackett wrote: Might want to check your numbers, that Stiletto is not faster than my Garmur (5154 vs 5189 - not much, but the Garmur is still the quicker...). At that range though, screw trying to catch it. I'll just get a sniper fit and shoot it. Also, I'll see your SeBo's and raise you 3x Sensor Damps on a cruiser. Whatcha gonna about that? FTR, I'm using pyfa 1.9.0 to run the numbers at level 5. Here's the faster Garmur fit for reference: [Garmur, Speed] Overdrive Injector System II Overdrive Injector System II Overdrive Injector System II 1MN Microwarpdrive II Stasis Webifier II Warp Disruptor II Warp Scrambler II Light Missile Launcher II, Scourge Precision Light Missile Light Missile Launcher II, Scourge Precision Light Missile Light Missile Launcher II, Scourge Precision Light Missile Small Auxiliary Thrusters II Small Dynamic Fuel Valve II Small Engine Thermal Shielding II You are correct, when using 3x overdrive Garmur is marginally faster. I used 2x overdrive +1x nano in mine similar to stiletto. Although if Stiletto opts to go with 3x Overdrive over 2x Overdrive 1x Nano it is again faster (5237 m/s). Although that small difference is of academic interest at most as for all practical purposes they can be considered to be of equal speed under the current discussion constraints (2 minute sov laser cyckle time). Here, sanity... niiiice sanity, come to daddy... okay, that's a good sanity... THWONK! GOT the bastard.
Kristian Hackett Alpha Republic - Transcenders of Space and Time Solyaris Chtonium 47	Posted - 2015.03.12 08:54:44 - [1778] - Quote Carniflex wrote: Although that small difference is of academic interest at most as for all practical purposes they can be considered to be of equal speed under the current discussion constraints (2 minute sov laser cyckle time). That's assuming they even allow the T2 module to be fit to an interceptor. My proposal is the T2 is on BC-class and larger ships, T1 on everything and has serious penalties to prop mods. Get away from this "trollceptor pwn all" chatter entirely. Aircraft Maintenance - Using a high school diploma to fix what a college degree just f**ed up. "Life is too short to drink cheap beer."*
Carniflex StarHunt Mordus Angels 334	Posted - 2015.03.12 08:55:41 - [1779] - Quote xttz wrote: Finding null-sec systems with capture timers over 20-25 minutes will be extremely rare, and any newly taken systems that's don't inherit a strategic index from the old system will be even worse. That bodes very badly for anyone trying to shake up the nullsec status quo after the patch. As far as I understand the goal of the presented sov system is not "shaking up null sec" specifically. That is one of the expected side effects ofcource, like with any major changes to the game mechanics. In my opinion it would be naive to just expect existing sov holding alliance to roll over and die as a result. Here, sanity... niiiice sanity, come to daddy... okay, that's a good sanity... THWONK! GOT the bastard.
Carniflex StarHunt Mordus Angels 334	Posted - 2015.03.12 08:57:28 - [1780] - Quote Kristian Hackett wrote: Carniflex wrote: Although that small difference is of academic interest at most as for all practical purposes they can be considered to be of equal speed under the current discussion constraints (2 minute sov laser cyckle time). That's assuming they even allow the T2 module to be fit to an interceptor. My proposal is the T2 is on BC-class and larger ships, T1 on everything and has serious penalties to prop mods. Get away from this "trollceptor pwn all" chatter entirely. From what I am reading out from Fozzie's responses it is pretty clear that current intention is to allow T2 sov laser on all ships including interceptors without any current penalties planned for propulsion, mass, agility, etc. Edit: In my opinion the "trollceptor problem" is overhyped. I personally would pick a ship that is more suitable for it to troll sov. Something with enough buffer to be able to survive a hit or two if a random sniper comes in and ability to escape somehow when the timer is up meaning either a flight of ECM drones or jammer or two. Here, sanity... niiiice sanity, come to daddy... okay, that's a good sanity... THWONK! GOT the bastard.

ISD Ezwal ISD Community Communications Liaisons 4030	Posted - 2015.03.12 09:01:59 - [1781] - Quote I have removed some rule breaking posts. The Rules: 4. Personal attacks are prohibited. Commonly known as flaming, personal attacks are posts that are designed to personally berate or insult another forum user. Posts of this nature are not beneficial to the community spirit that CCP promote and as such they will not be tolerated. ISD Ezwal Vice Admiral Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs) Interstellar Services Department
xttz GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 500	Posted - 2015.03.12 09:03:46 - [1782] - Quote Carniflex wrote: From what I am reading out from Fozzie's responses it is pretty clear that current intention is to allow T2 sov laser on all ships including interceptors without any current penalties planned for propulsion, mass, agility, etc. His intention is to use the minimum number of restrictions to prevent abuse of the new system. There is already a list of penalties in place to prevent warping, jumping, docking, cloaking, and remote assistance. He has specifically stated that if they believe Interceptors have the same potential for abuse, something will be done to prevent that.
Kristian Hackett Alpha Republic - Transcenders of Space and Time Solyaris Chtonium 47	Posted - 2015.03.12 09:13:58 - [1783] - Quote xttz wrote: Carniflex wrote: From what I am reading out from Fozzie's responses it is pretty clear that current intention is to allow T2 sov laser on all ships including interceptors without any current penalties planned for propulsion, mass, agility, etc. His intention is to use the minimum number of restrictions to prevent abuse of the new system. There is already a list of penalties in place to prevent warping, jumping, docking, cloaking, and remote assistance. He has specifically stated that if they believe Interceptors have the same potential for abuse, something will be done to prevent that. The biggest issue I'm seeing here, really on any ship class smaller than BC is that the Interceptors and Evasion fit T3s are going to be the biggest issue and the hardest to counter. If people were complaining about T3 fleets before, they're about to hate those fleets even more. Personally I think what I laid out here would provide the best compromise - https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5574484#post5574484 but that's just my opinion. I know CCP Fozzie wants to limit penalties and such, but honestly you need to draw the line somewhere to keep the system from breaking. Aircraft Maintenance - Using a high school diploma to fix what a college degree just f**ed up. "Life is too short to drink cheap beer."*

CCP Fozzie C C P C C P Alliance 12367	Posted - 2015.03.12 09:36:58 - [1784] - Quote Soldarius wrote: Now this begs another question: If I am in the process of capturing a sov structure I lose lock and then reestablish lock before the module cycle time is completed, will capture recommence immediately or do I have to wait to start a new cycle on my Entosis Link? In that situation you would need to wait for you current cycle to complete, then activate the module again (triggering another warmup cycle before the module starts capturing). This means if you lose lock, you wonGÇÖt be able to contest control of the structure for at least 2 minutes, and up to 4 minutes (the remainder of your current cycle, then the warmup cycle after the new activation). Rowells wrote: Ok, gonna bring this up again. What will the impact of NPC Alts using the Elink be? Can they destroy the hubs/TCUs? Can they 'capture' or Freeport a station? Characters that are not in an alliance will not be able to activate their Entosis Links on unowned structures or command nodes (since that would allow them to capture the structure) but otherwise the current plan is for them to work the same as everyone else. Rowells wrote: Also, how do you plan on differentiating the countdown timers associated with station services? Will they have reinforce or just repair immediately? Station services wonGÇÖt go into reinforced. TheyGÇÖll simply become disabled, and can be re-enabled at any time by the station owner using their own Entosis Links. Game Designer \| Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie http://www.twitch.tv/ccp_fozzie/

Gempei Marvinovi pratele Nulli Secunda 76	Posted - 2015.03.12 09:56:39 - [1785] - Quote CCP Fozzie wrote: In that situation you would need to wait for you current cycle to complete, then activate the module again (triggering another warmup cycle before the module starts capturing). This means if you lose lock, you wonGÇÖt be able to contest control of the structure for at least 2 minutes, and up to 4 minutes (the remainder of your current cycle, then the warmup cycle after the new activation). So trollceptor and antitroll falcon. Good job with that sov mechanics.
Sentient Blade Crisis Atmosphere 1489	Posted - 2015.03.12 10:01:41 - [1786] - Quote My question is, can multiple people activate Entosis at once? With the inability to receive remote reps, and assuming the ceptor problem has a solution in terms of fitting limitations, wont major battles have their Entosis links fitted to brick-tanked subcapitals? Now from what I've read, the aim is to have grid control be the determining factor, but isn't that going to be limited in that even if you have a thousand people on grid protecting a triple-plated high-grade-slaved abaddon, a ninja hit-and-run attack with bombers (or my likely strategy would probably be sniper tornados sitting on the edge of grid) then the link is going to get toasted, even though control of the grid could quite reasonably be considered controlled by someone else.
xttz GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 500	Posted - 2015.03.12 10:06:29 - [1787] - Quote CCP Fozzie wrote: Characters that are not in an alliance will not be able to activate their Entosis Links on unowned structures or command nodes (since that would allow them to capture the structure) but otherwise the current plan is for them to work the same as everyone else. I'm curious, why are NPC corp characters able to use Entosis Links at all? You can't access the Corporation, Alliance & Organization Discussions forum with one, surely the same should apply to actually contesting space in-game? In addition, do you have any opinion on balancing capture time with ship size / cost? For example, making faster and more disposable frigates take longer to capture something than a battleship. Do you think there should be some incentive to risk more expensive ships over disposable ones?
Kristian Hackett Alpha Republic - Transcenders of Space and Time Solyaris Chtonium 47	Posted - 2015.03.12 10:11:41 - [1788] - Quote Sentient Blade wrote: My question is, can multiple people activate Entosis at once? With the inability to receive remote reps, and assuming the ceptor problem has a solution in terms of fitting limitations, wont major battles have their Entosis links fitted to brick-tanked subcapitals? Now from what I've read, the aim is to have grid control be the determining factor, but isn't that going to be limited in that even if you have a thousand people on grid protecting a triple-plated high-grade-slaved abaddon, a ninja hit-and-run attack with bombers (or my likely strategy would probably be sniper tornados sitting on the edge of grid) then the link is going to get toasted, even though control of the grid could quite reasonably be considered controlled by someone else. PS: There should probably be some kind of bonus to cycle time on certain ships... I am of course thinking of the one designed for infiltration... Black Ops. 1) Yes, multiple people can be running the link at the same time, but 1 link or 100 links it's still going to take the same amount of time. There's no points here, it's simply a who has complete control. If you activate a link and begin capture, then your opponent activates a link, the capture is halted until one of the links drop. 2) Yes, most likely, but again, those are going to be the major battles and there will be major firepower on each side. 3) Control of the grid, in this case, is going to pretty much be "who can keep their link running?" So effective military control means that if you can prevent the other team from applying their own link to contest the capture, you've maintained control of the grid. Aircraft Maintenance - Using a high school diploma to fix what a college degree just f**ed up. "Life is too short to drink cheap beer."*
FearlessLittleToaster GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 34	Posted - 2015.03.12 11:01:02 - [1789] - Quote A minor suggestion to help combat pure evasion fits. It would be great if you could make it extremely obvious when an Entosis Link has started a new cycle,with something like a gate flash. This would allow an attacker who had eyes on the grid to maximize the time they had to run down an enemy trying to escape.
Arthur Aihaken X A X 4112	Posted - 2015.03.12 11:09:20 - [1790] - Quote Why not make the Entosis link like polarized weapons? Simply equipping it drops all your resistances to 0. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.

baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 15471	Posted - 2015.03.12 11:26:23 - [1791] - Quote Arthur Aihaken wrote: Why not make the Entosis link like polarized weapons? Simply equipping it drops all your resistances to 0. Makes defending way too easy in every situation where the attackers decide to fight. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
Yroc Jannseen Enlightened Industries Goonswarm Federation 72	Posted - 2015.03.12 11:35:49 - [1792] - Quote FearlessLittleToaster wrote: A minor suggestion to help combat pure evasion fits. It would be great if you could make it extremely obvious when an Entosis Link has started a new cycle,with something like a gate flash. This would allow an attacker who had eyes on the grid to maximize the time they had to run down an enemy trying to escape. The problem with visual only effects is the fact that many people end up playing with a lot or most effects turned off, whether to reduce client side issues in big fights, or because they are running multiple clients. The entosis effect should somehow be shown in the overview.
Kaarous Aldurald Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE. 12115	Posted - 2015.03.12 11:49:01 - [1793] - Quote NPC corp characters can use this? You have got to be kidding me. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs.
Veskrashen Justified Chaos Spaceship Bebop 816	Posted - 2015.03.12 12:11:35 - [1794] - Quote Kristian Hackett wrote: That's assuming they even allow the T2 module to be fit to an interceptor. My proposal is the T2 is on BC-class and larger ships, T1 on everything and has serious penalties to prop mods. Get away from this "trollceptor pwn all" chatter entirely. Any "solution" that relies on restricting mods to certain hull sizes, or disallows T2 links on certain ships, or artificially reduces speed will invalidate several current and future fleet comps. Since that's explicitly not a goal of CCP's - they specifically don't want the Entosis Link to dictate fleet comps from a fitting standpoint, and specifically do not want to restrict it to larger hulls only - your solution won't be viable in terms of their design goals. Want to make Trollceptors hard to use? Make sure the cap drain on T2 links is significant, so it'll be a complete pain to run an MWD and Link and still be cap stable. We Gallente have a saying: "CCP created the Gallente Militia to train the Fighters..."
Veskrashen Justified Chaos Spaceship Bebop 816	Posted - 2015.03.12 12:17:07 - [1795] - Quote CCP Fozzie wrote: Soldarius wrote: Now this begs another question: If I am in the process of capturing a sov structure I lose lock and then reestablish lock before the module cycle time is completed, will capture recommence immediately or do I have to wait to start a new cycle on my Entosis Link? In that situation you would need to wait for you current cycle to complete, then activate the module again (triggering another warmup cycle before the module starts capturing). This means if you lose lock, you wonGÇÖt be able to contest control of the structure for at least 2 minutes, and up to 4 minutes (the remainder of your current cycle, then the warmup cycle after the new activation). And in one fell stroke, Fozzie has completely neutered Trollceptors. If you break lock on the structure, you're not getting any more progress for several minutes. If you bugger off as soon as you see someone on scan, one dude in a combat interceptor can effectively chase off any number of Trollceptors. Hell, Hero Keres and Hero Maulus and Hero Griffin and... well, anything small, fast, with a long lock range and any damp / ECM module - will be able to single handedly save dozens of systems just by warping on grid, breaking the Trollceptor's lock, and moving on to the next. So, no longer any reason to nerf Trollceptors, since the solution is simple, achievable, scalable, and viable. Can we move on to other link balance issues now? We Gallente have a saying: "CCP created the Gallente Militia to train the Fighters..."
Kaarous Aldurald Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE. 12120	Posted - 2015.03.12 12:17:25 - [1796] - Quote Veskrashen wrote: Any "solution" that relies on restricting mods to certain hull sizes, or disallows T2 links on certain ships, or artificially reduces speed will invalidate several current and future fleet comps. Good. That's the point. Quote: Since that's explicitly not a goal of CCP's And as was stated here, evasion tactics not being optimal is also a goal of theirs. They need to make their choice on the matter. Personally, I suggest they think about my original suggestion of making the Entosis link disable all prop mods on the activating ship. Doesn't restrict what can mount the blasted thing, and it stops people from dicking around until the other guy dies of boredom. The only reason anyone would be against such a thing is if they are intending to kite for their sov, not fight for it. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs.
Obil Que Star Explorers Reckoning Star Alliance 226	Posted - 2015.03.12 12:25:40 - [1797] - Quote Basil Pupkin wrote: Alavaria Fera wrote: Basically, you want a "discussion" that's just all of you having 0.0 fantasies about ending evil cfc So a hilarious echochamber "discussion". Go have it on reddit or something You're likely to just get whatever has been planned anyway, since I doubt they'll change much so might as well begin planning out your interceptor fits and start buying so you won't have to when everything is overpriced just before/after the patch I don't want a discussion. I want a system not made for one coalition, not made by people who balance the game exclusively in the interest of the said coalition. Dinsdale?
Kaarous Aldurald Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE. 12120	Posted - 2015.03.12 12:27:51 - [1798] - Quote Obil Que wrote: Basil Pupkin wrote: Alavaria Fera wrote: Basically, you want a "discussion" that's just all of you having 0.0 fantasies about ending evil cfc So a hilarious echochamber "discussion". Go have it on reddit or something You're likely to just get whatever has been planned anyway, since I doubt they'll change much so might as well begin planning out your interceptor fits and start buying so you won't have to when everything is overpriced just before/after the patch I don't want a discussion. I want a system not made for one coalition, not made by people who balance the game exclusively in the interest of the said coalition. Dinsdale? Nope, but check this guy's post history for a few good laughs. He thinks docking and pos shields are both exploits. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs.
Veskrashen Justified Chaos Spaceship Bebop 816	Posted - 2015.03.12 12:37:28 - [1799] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: And as was stated here, evasion tactics not being optimal is also a goal of theirs. "Optimal" and "Viable" are two different things. Optimal would be if a kitey Link boat could always win, never be caught, and never be countered. That the only way to stop him would be to either bring your own kitey stuff or sit at zero with a defensive link and wait for him to get bored. That's not the case here, however, now that we know how losing link works - you have to wait for your current cycle to finish, then spend another cycle reconnecting before you begin making any progress towards capture. That means that there are a multitude of counters to a kiting comp that do not rely on bringing your own kiting comp. Viable on the other hand... if you made Entosis Links inflict a severe speed penalty, kiting comps would not be viable - they would be unable to hold range. Kiting comps should remain viable, even if they're not optimal. Changing the subject a bit, what about swapping the ranges on the T1/T2 links? T1 links would have the 250km effective range, but with a 5 minute cycle time. That would mean that someone using a T1 link who lost lock or had to evade would suffer a much greater time penalty before being able to make progress on that (or another) structure. Kiting ships would be forced to remain on field much longer - up to 5 minutes at a time - since the Entosis Link would prevent them from warping out. While T2 links would have a shorter range, they'd connect much faster, making it easier to stop someone else's progress and to reconnect should you lose your own. It would also allow you to disengage from brawls faster, rather than being pinned on field for 5 minutes in a brawling comp with no remote support available. This would also force capitals / supercapitals to either remain close to their objective to take advantage of the 2 minute cycle time on the T2 link, or be forced to face tank an enemy fleet for up to 5 minutes at a time. Something to consider at least. EDIT: Thinking a bit more about this, it could actually force "interesting gameplay choices". You can either choose long range and be forced to stay on field longer, or sack up and go for a brawling comp and be pinned down for less time. Of course Bombers would have a field day with a brawling comp balled up within 30km of an objective, but bombers are up for review anyway. We Gallente have a saying: "CCP created the Gallente Militia to train the Fighters..."
Philip Ogtaulmolfi Signal Cartel EvE-Scout Enclave 1	Posted - 2015.03.12 12:39:20 - [1800] - Quote Sentient Blade wrote: My question is, can multiple people activate Entosis at once? With the inability to receive remote reps, and assuming the ceptor problem has a solution in terms of fitting limitations, wont major battles have their Entosis links fitted to brick-tanked subcapitals? Now from what I've read, the aim is to have grid control be the determining factor, but isn't that going to be limited in that even if you have a thousand people on grid protecting a triple-plated high-grade-slaved abaddon, a ninja hit-and-run attack with bombers (or my likely strategy would probably be sniper tornados sitting on the edge of grid) then the link is going to get toasted, even though control of the grid could quite reasonably be considered controlled by someone else. PS: There should probably be some kind of bonus to cycle time on certain ships... I am of course thinking of the one designed for infiltration... Black Ops. In this context, control of the grid means you can get your entosis link ship to complete the capture cicle, by whatever means. If you let snipers kill your capturing ship, you dont have control.

Carniflex StarHunt Mordus Angels 334	Posted - 2015.03.12 12:44:53 - [1801] - Quote Veskrashen wrote: Changing the subject a bit, what about swapping the ranges on the T1/T2 links? T1 links would have the 250km effective range, but with a 5 minute cycle time. That would mean that someone using a T1 link who lost lock or had to evade would suffer a much greater time penalty before being able to make progress on that (or another) structure. Kiting ships would be forced to remain on field much longer - up to 5 minutes at a time - since the Entosis Link would prevent them from warping out. While T2 links would have a shorter range, they'd connect much faster, making it easier to stop someone else's progress and to reconnect should you lose your own. It would also allow you to disengage from brawls faster, rather than being pinned on field for 5 minutes in a brawling comp with no remote support available. This would also force capitals / supercapitals to either remain close to their objective to take advantage of the 2 minute cycle time on the T2 link, or be forced to face tank an enemy fleet for up to 5 minutes at a time. Something to consider at least. EDIT: Thinking a bit more about this, it could actually force "interesting gameplay choices". You can either choose long range and be forced to stay on field longer, or sack up and go for a brawling comp and be pinned down for less time. Of course Bombers would have a field day with a brawling comp balled up within 30km of an objective, but bombers are up for review anyway. That is an interesting idea. In essence would mean that there would be a tradeoff, short range, fast cycle vs. long range, slower cyckle. With current proposal T2 seems to be just flat out better version of T1 at slightly elevated price - I think your proposal is better. Here, sanity... niiiice sanity, come to daddy... okay, that's a good sanity... THWONK! GOT the bastard.
Carniflex StarHunt Mordus Angels 334	Posted - 2015.03.12 12:47:30 - [1802] - Quote Veskrashen wrote: EDIT: Thinking a bit more about this, it could actually force "interesting gameplay choices". You can either choose long range and be forced to stay on field longer, or sack up and go for a brawling comp and be pinned down for less time. Of course Bombers would have a field day with a brawling comp balled up within 30km of an objective, but bombers are up for review anyway. Well it does not need to be 25 km and 250 km. ~50 km and max 250 km would feel in my opinion more reasonable points. Then again we do not know yet if there is any additional skills involved potentially increasing the range. Currently it would seem like no as only single basic skill has been mentioned so far. Here, sanity... niiiice sanity, come to daddy... okay, that's a good sanity... THWONK! GOT the bastard.
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 687	Posted - 2015.03.12 13:05:17 - [1803] - Quote Lena Lazair wrote: Not only is this important, it's fundamental. However, the idea that ANY large bloc would be able to refrain from attacking each other once trollsov goes live is simply laughable. The decision will no longer be in the hands of bloc leaders because it will no longer be relegated to a relatively small group of cap pilots flying ships very few people can afford to individually lose without SRP/alliance support. The decision will be made by line members flying cheap subcaps doing serious sov damage and/or provoking routine fights with formerly blue neighbors because they are bored and tired of stagnant null. The moment they realize that standings the diplos have set mean squat, 80% of coalition PvP pilots will be rolling the sov of anyone not wearing their alliance tag. And there's nothing their alliance can do to prevent this. Kicking these folks will merely serve to weaken that alliance's ability to defend sov while simultaneously adding to the numbers of ronin intimately familiar with local geography. Each and every one of them capable of contesting sov in a relatively meaningful way and now pissed at the alliance that just kicked them merely for the desire of finding fights nearby with groups they mostly already don't like. Probably the funniest part of this change is the number of people that seem to have forgotten their alliances are NOT made up predominantly of people with capital ships or the budget to lose those ships on their own whims. Pilots who don't actually need or care about 20m ratting ticks in a Nyx with perfect IHUB upgrades in a system. These are the faceless line members making up a huge portion of your numbers that will suddenly have the tools to contest sov whenever they want in the cheapest ships available; SRP and diplos be damned. Goon core should do well as usual, BRAVE, etc., but everyone better be taking a serious look at their demographics if you think you will have ANY chance to control who your line members are attacking once this change goes live. And best of all, if this DOESN'T happen, it will expose baldly the lie of nullbears claiming that they are tired of stagnant null. It will be in the hands of each and every 2 month old pilot with a hangar of subcaps to vote with their sovlasers, so to speak, as to whether or not null should remain blue and stagnant. Bloc leaders will have pretty much no say in this choice. this is probably the most words anyone has ever posted to prove their complete and utter inability to understand a thing in the history of these forums hint: if the psychological mechanisms described in this garbage barge were at all true, we'd deal with hundreds of incidents of blue shooting a day instead of the maybe one a month we do get, if that it turns out that one's alliance membership is an extremely powerful mote of collateral towards obeying the rules you might understand this if the organizations you belonged to were even remotely appealing
Kaarous Aldurald Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE. 12120	Posted - 2015.03.12 13:05:42 - [1804] - Quote Veskrashen wrote: "Optimal" and "Viable" are two different things. They are not, at least not in this context. It is either possible to capture sov by dicking around until the other guy gets bored, or it's not. Disabling prop mods solves it nicely. It keeps all of their goals intact, it does not restrict choice of hull, it promotes conflict instead of kiting, and it forces either side to have military control of the grid. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs.
EvilweaselFinance BUTTECORP INC Goonswarm Federation 717	Posted - 2015.03.12 13:08:14 - [1805] - Quote Lena Lazair wrote: Not only is this important, it's fundamental. However, the idea that ANY large bloc would be able to refrain from attacking each other once trollsov goes live is simply laughable. The decision will no longer be in the hands of bloc leaders because it will no longer be relegated to a relatively small group of cap pilots flying ships very few people can afford to individually lose without SRP/alliance support. i see we're in the "complete fanfiction from people who have never set foot in null" phase of the thread
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 687	Posted - 2015.03.12 13:16:09 - [1806] - Quote Veskrashen wrote: CCP Fozzie wrote: Soldarius wrote: Now this begs another question: If I am in the process of capturing a sov structure I lose lock and then reestablish lock before the module cycle time is completed, will capture recommence immediately or do I have to wait to start a new cycle on my Entosis Link? In that situation you would need to wait for you current cycle to complete, then activate the module again (triggering another warmup cycle before the module starts capturing). This means if you lose lock, you wonGÇÖt be able to contest control of the structure for at least 2 minutes, and up to 4 minutes (the remainder of your current cycle, then the warmup cycle after the new activation). And in one fell stroke, Fozzie has completely neutered Trollceptors. If you break lock on the structure, you're not getting any more progress for several minutes. If you bugger off as soon as you see someone on scan, one dude in a combat interceptor can effectively chase off any number of Trollceptors. Hell, Hero Keres and Hero Maulus and Hero Griffin and... well, anything small, fast, with a long lock range and any damp / ECM module - will be able to single handedly save dozens of systems just by warping on grid, breaking the Trollceptor's lock, and moving on to the next. So, no longer any reason to nerf Trollceptors, since the solution is simple, achievable, scalable, and viable. Can we move on to other link balance issues now? nope disengage and move to next target
Aralyn Cormallen Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation 868	Posted - 2015.03.12 13:32:11 - [1807] - Quote Veskrashen wrote: Kaarous Aldurald wrote: And as was stated here, evasion tactics not being optimal is also a goal of theirs. "Optimal" and "Viable" are two different things. Optimal would be if a kitey Link boat could always win, never be caught, and never be countered. That the only way to stop him would be to either bring your own kitey stuff or sit at zero with a defensive link and wait for him to get bored.{/quote] Neither solution constitutes controlling the grid, and can't be classed as a fight under any interpretation. Quote: That's not the case here, however, now that we know how losing link works - you have to wait for your current cycle to finish, then spend another cycle reconnecting before you begin making any progress towards capture. That means that there are a multitude of counters to a kiting comp that do not rely on bringing your own kiting comp. Ah, this would be the ECM solution. Another solution that is centred on the concept of not fighting, and not controlling the grid, just competing for who wants to not contest the grid longest. [quote] if you made Entosis Links inflict a severe speed penalty, kiting comps would not be viable - they would be unable to hold range. Why wouldn't they be viable? If you are the faster moving, longer ranged fleet in the engagement, why are you trying to activate a sov-laser when you have an enemy on the field? After all, the enemy can't activate a link since you will immediately alpha it off the field before it completes its preperation cycle, so why should you be allowed to freely link away when the brawling comp you are fighting cannot? If you were allowed to activate your link whilst maintaining your speed and range advantage, then you could freely capture without ever engaging the enemy (barring sniping every e-link that activates or ecm boat that shows up). The brawling comp would be the one not viable, the kiter indeed would be optimal. Ultimately, the purpose of the e-link is that the user must be holding the grid. Not kiting around the edge out of range ignoring the enemy, and not sitting in a invulnerable spider-tank at 0 . CCP have removed the ability for close-range and capital comps to perform the latter, which is where their advantage lays, but has yet to ensure kitey and frigate comps cant perform the former, where their advantage lays. The options to even up the playing field is to either remove the kiters ability to kite while linking, or return the brawlers ability to tank the kiters damage while linking - and heres a hint, the second option is by far the worst of the two.
Dave Stark 7447	Posted - 2015.03.12 13:34:41 - [1808] - Quote Aralyn Cormallen wrote: Ultimately, the purpose of the e-link is that the user must be holding the grid. if you're within 250km of the node and you can activate a link, clearly you are holding the grid. otherwise you'd be back in a station after being podded.
Eli Apol Definitely a nullsec alt 371	Posted - 2015.03.12 13:38:36 - [1809] - Quote Promiscuous Female wrote: every person who tries to post complicated anti-interceptor vignettes assumes the interceptor is orbiting why would you do that if no one is on grid Because a static interceptor can be tackled by a stealth bomber decloaking at zero and web scramming it and doesn't require any prediction at all. I think you meant to say 'no-one visible on grid' Carniflex wrote: A typical trollceptor would be... All the trollceptor fits you've been looking at are optimised for speed and lose their 2s align ability = killable at an insta lock gate camp (rather than killable by a 10km/s 10mn tac destroyer) = no longer a trollceptor because they can't dance from system to system. but what would I know, I'm just a salvager
Aralyn Cormallen Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation 869	Posted - 2015.03.12 13:42:35 - [1810] - Quote Dave Stark wrote: Aralyn Cormallen wrote: Ultimately, the purpose of the e-link is that the user must be holding the grid. if you're within 250km of the node and you can activate a link, clearly you are holding the grid. otherwise you'd be back in a station after being podded. Clearly you are on the grid, holding it, far from necessarily. You just need to be fast enough to evade the other guys on the grid, and possess enough range to kill anyone else who activates an e-link. Short-range and brawler comps clearly need not apply under these new sov rules.

Max Kolonko WATAHA. Unseen Wolves 498	Posted - 2015.03.12 14:10:06 - [1811] - Quote Gempei wrote: CCP Fozzie wrote: In that situation you would need to wait for you current cycle to complete, then activate the module again (triggering another warmup cycle before the module starts capturing). This means if you lose lock, you wonGÇÖt be able to contest control of the structure for at least 2 minutes, and up to 4 minutes (the remainder of your current cycle, then the warmup cycle after the new activation). So trollceptor and antitroll falcon. Good job with that sov mechanics. Or just troll dampener Read and support: Don't mess with OUR WH's What is Your stance on WH stuff?
Wanda Fayne Gurlz with Gunz 58	Posted - 2015.03.12 14:12:08 - [1812] - Quote Veskrashen wrote: Changing the subject a bit, what about swapping the ranges on the T1/T2 links? T1 links would have the 250km effective range, but with a 5 minute cycle time. That would mean that someone using a T1 link who lost lock or had to evade would suffer a much greater time penalty before being able to make progress on that (or another) structure. Kiting ships would be forced to remain on field much longer - up to 5 minutes at a time - since the Entosis Link would prevent them from warping out. While T2 links would have a shorter range, they'd connect much faster, making it easier to stop someone else's progress and to reconnect should you lose your own. It would also allow you to disengage from brawls faster, rather than being pinned on field for 5 minutes in a brawling comp with no remote support available.. This is actually a good suggestion. I was wondering why anyone would choose a brawling fit...
Soldarius Kosher Nostra The 99 Percent 1174	Posted - 2015.03.12 14:24:46 - [1813] - Quote Veskrashen wrote: CCP Fozzie wrote: Soldarius wrote: Now this begs another question: If I am in the process of capturing a sov structure I lose lock and then reestablish lock before the module cycle time is completed, will capture recommence immediately or do I have to wait to start a new cycle on my Entosis Link? In that situation you would need to wait for you current cycle to complete, then activate the module again (triggering another warmup cycle before the module starts capturing). This means if you lose lock, you wonGÇÖt be able to contest control of the structure for at least 2 minutes, and up to 4 minutes (the remainder of your current cycle, then the warmup cycle after the new activation). And in one fell stroke, Fozzie has completely neutered Trollceptors. If you break lock on the structure, you're not getting any more progress for several minutes. If you bugger off as soon as you see someone on scan, one dude in a combat interceptor can effectively chase off any number of Trollceptors. Hell, Hero Keres and Hero Maulus and Hero Griffin and... well, anything small, fast, with a long lock range and any damp / ECM module - will be able to single handedly save dozens of systems just by warping on grid, breaking the Trollceptor's lock, and moving on to the next. So, no longer any reason to nerf Trollceptors, since the solution is simple, achievable, scalable, and viable. Can we move on to other link balance issues now? Pretty much this, which is why I asked. I expected to be told we would have to wait for the current cycle to complete. But having to go through a whole 'nother warm-up cycle, that's pretty funny and I think will make damps surprisingly effective against even small to medium fleets considering the cycle time on damps is 10 seconds. edit: thx CCP Fozzie. http://youtu.be/YVkUvmDQ3HY
FT Diomedes The Graduates Forged of Fire 865	Posted - 2015.03.12 14:58:28 - [1814] - Quote EvilweaselFinance wrote: Lena Lazair wrote: Not only is this important, it's fundamental. However, the idea that ANY large bloc would be able to refrain from attacking each other once trollsov goes live is simply laughable. The decision will no longer be in the hands of bloc leaders because it will no longer be relegated to a relatively small group of cap pilots flying ships very few people can afford to individually lose without SRP/alliance support. i see we're in the "complete fanfiction from people who have never set foot in null" phase of the thread As mentioned, you have no clue how much people who live in null sec have to work together. If someone tells me I can lead roaming gangs and hunt ratters, but not attack strategic objectives, then I am going to listen if I want to stay in my corporation or alliance. The Greatest Ship Ever. Credit to Shahfluffers.
Veskrashen Justified Chaos Spaceship Bebop 818	Posted - 2015.03.12 14:58:53 - [1815] - Quote Aralyn Cormallen wrote: Veskrashen wrote: "Optimal" and "Viable" are two different things. Optimal would be if a kitey Link boat could always win, never be caught, and never be countered. That the only way to stop him would be to either bring your own kitey stuff or sit at zero with a defensive link and wait for him to get bored. Neither solution constitutes controlling the grid, and can't be classed as a fight under any interpretation. Quote: That's not the case here, however, now that we know how losing link works - you have to wait for your current cycle to finish, then spend another cycle reconnecting before you begin making any progress towards capture. That means that there are a multitude of counters to a kiting comp that do not rely on bringing your own kiting comp. Ah, this would be the ECM solution. Another solution that is centred on the concept of not fighting, and not controlling the grid, just competing for who wants to not contest the grid longest. I would disagree. You've got pilots using offensive modules on each other, that's a fight. The fact that one of them may choose not to attempt to kill the other because he's in a pure evasion fit just means that the fight ends without anyone getting a KM. In fact, the ECM / damp boat will be able to recap the structure since his link isn't being interrupted by the Trollceptor - he is controlling the field by preventing the Trollceptor from engaging on his terms. Should the Trollceptor bugger off somewhere else, he's still controlling the grid and won the fight. Aralyn Cormallen wrote: Why wouldn't they be viable? If you are the faster moving, longer ranged fleet in the engagement, why are you trying to activate a sov-laser when you have an enemy on the field? After all, the enemy can't activate a link since you will immediately alpha it off the field before it completes its preperation cycle, so why should you be allowed to freely link away when the brawling comp you are fighting cannot? If you were allowed to activate your link whilst maintaining your speed and range advantage, then you could freely capture without ever engaging the enemy (barring sniping every e-link that activates or ecm boat that shows up). The brawling comp would be the one not viable, the kiter indeed would be optimal. Ultimately, the purpose of the e-link is that the user must be holding the grid. Not kiting around the edge out of range ignoring the enemy, and not sitting in a invulnerable spider-tank at 0 . CCP have removed the ability for close-range and capital comps to perform the latter, which is where their advantage lays, but has yet to ensure kitey and frigate comps cant perform the former, where their advantage lays. The options to even up the playing field is to either remove the kiters ability to kite while linking, or return the brawlers ability to tank the kiters damage while linking - and heres a hint, the second option is by far the worst of the two. EDIT: Once this disparity is balanced out, I'd be willing to suggest that an activated e-link makes users immune to ewar effects, after all, if they are slowed and can't warp already, the only reason to ewar them is to ecm troll, which is just as silly as evasion trolling, and is stupid for all the same reasons, these mechanics should be encouraging fights, not stupid gimmick-plays to annoy and frustrate. You're thinking in terms of fleets, not solo work or small gang vs. larger gang. The idea that you can just volley any Link ship off the field with a kiting fleet then stop to turn on your Entosis Link doesn't apply to small gang / solo engagements. Preventing an entire subset of fleet comps - long range / high speed / kiting ones specifically - from using Entosis Links breaks the entire point of CCP's goal of ensuring that ALL fleet comps are still viable to be used with Entosis Links. You're turning it back into an N+1 DPS race, which isn't at all what CCP is intending with this new system. I have yet to see a cogent reason why kiting doctrines should be prevented from using an Entosis Link without penalty, other than the fact that they'd be hard to catch and kill. Since that's not even remotely the only counter to such doctrines, I don't see that as an overwhelming counterargument. And you're definitely not taking into account attrition strategies for controlling a grid, or the advantage those give to a prepared defender. We Gallente have a saying: "CCP created the Gallente Militia to train the Fighters..."
Borachon GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 41	Posted - 2015.03.12 15:07:25 - [1816] - Quote Veskrashen wrote: Can we move on to other link balance issues now? The biggest balance issue with Entosis links, I think, is that their current design doesn't reflect the engagement ranges and profiles that ships are balanced around. In particular, having two link range profiles (very short or very long) that can be fit on any ship interacts poorly with ship balancing and any meta. Consider long range beam laser fits, specifically optimal-bonused laser hulls with aurora and a tracking computer scripted for optimal range. Here's their engagement ranges: Retribution: 49km optimal + falloff Confessor in sharpshooter mode: 55km optimal + falloff Zealot: 105km optimal + falloff Tachyon Apoc: 220km optimal + falloff For entosis links to reflect "grid control" and not adversely impact ship meta, their ranges need to match these envelopes on these ships sizes. If an apoc cannot fit entosis links that are a significant fraction of their long engagement range, they can have grid control and still not be able to apply entosis links to a structure. Conversely, if small ships can fit links with a range much longer than their engagement range, they will be able to apply entosis links even when they don't have any real impact on the grid. Big picture, that's why I think it's important to have entosis links that match the ranges of appropriately sized weapons and can only be fit to the appropriately sized ships. One way to do this would be to have S/M/L-sized links; I could imagine this causing difficulties to the drifter drop table, however. Another option would be to buff T1 link range to 50km, so it covers long range frigates and medium range cruisers, allowing the T2 link to be fit only on BC-sized and above ships, and dropping its range slightly to 200km or so.
Celesae Clan Shadow Wolf Fatal Ascension 31	Posted - 2015.03.12 15:19:59 - [1817] - Quote CCP Fozzie wrote: You don't need to be in any specific system to receive the notification in our current plan. ... Then once that first cycle is complete you begin capturing. Capture time at this point depends on the occupancy defense bonus of the system, but will always take at least 5 minutes (which is two and a half cycles for the T2 module and one for the T1 module). The cycle speed of the module doesn't have any impact on the speed at which the actual capture completes. So, combine that with your plans to not alert the alliance members until after the "warmup" cycle has completed, and your stated intent to remove local intel... Alliances won't know anyone is even there or trying to capture a target until they have 5 minutes or less to respond - with the warp speed nerfs, a ratter/miner literally won't have the time necessary to respond by docking up, reship, and warp to the spot to attempt to defend, unless the system already has very high indecies - especially if the system under attack is not the one you're currently in, making it a problem for even a small constellation of sov ownership. Does this not bring up the point that maybe the alliances should be notified as soon as the entosis link goes live? In "low-use" systems, particularly freshly-obtained systems, this will require someone to be sitting, spread out (and likely alone) to keep eyes on each of the targets 4 x 7 (4 hrs a day, 7 days a week) - how is this, in ANY way, more fun than shooting a SBU? Even a small group of torp bombers can kill an SBU in drastically less time and not required to be present every. Single. Day. The timers don't get much better until the indecies are pretty high - how is your team prepared to respond if large swathes of null sov becomes a wasteland of unwanted "flip/flop systems"? I want to know what the back-out/fallback plan is, or if you even have one? I like the principle of the ideas, but the system is flawed. No matter how this is pitched, it just sounds like a massive chore without much reward, and definitely not a fun one unless someone actually does come by your "post" to make attempt on it. Have you ever done guard duty? I have, and It really, really sucks - there isn't a single successful game title out there that I can think of that revolves around guard duty.
Lena Lazair Khanid Irregulars Khanid's Legion 428	Posted - 2015.03.12 15:20:37 - [1818] - Quote Sentient Blade wrote: My question is, can multiple people activate Entosis at once? With the inability to receive remote reps, and assuming the ceptor problem has a solution in terms of fitting limitations, wont major battles have their Entosis links fitted to brick-tanked subcapitals? Now from what I've read, the aim is to have grid control be the determining factor, but isn't that going to be limited in that even if you have a thousand people on grid protecting a triple-plated high-grade-slaved abaddon, a ninja hit-and-run attack with bombers (or my likely strategy would probably be sniper tornados sitting on the edge of grid) then the link is going to get toasted, even though control of the grid could quite reasonably be considered controlled by someone else. Been stated numerous places that yes, multiple e-links can be activated at once from the same "side". So losing a single BS to a bomber run shouldn't be a problem for a reasonably serious attacking force; even at 25k max range that's a lot of room to spread out multiple e-link ships, nevermind the 250km option. That said, expect brick tanked T3's, not BS's, for exactly this reason. Well, with fatigue and local tank bonuses coupled to cruiser sized sigs, expect DST's actually. As to "what is grid control", yeah... that's come up many times. I'm not in the camp that would call what you describe "grid control". Being the brawlers sitting at 0 doesn't mean you are in control of the grid if you can still be picked off by a mobile sniper fleet. It just means you are still in the middle of fighting for that grid and happen to be using a tactic that favors not moving much :) All the usual anti-sniper stuff will be necessary for ACTUAL grid control that isn't particularly susceptible to harrying. Just being the big fleet no one can land at 0 to brawl with is not enough and is not grid control in this context, which I think is intentional. You don't necessarily need to be able to force the harrying fleet into an engagement, but you should be able to make it sufficiently dangerous for them to be on grid long enough to apply damage to even a single e-link ship that there is no way they are going to win a war of attrition against your e-link fleet within the, at most, 40 minute timer.
Lena Lazair Khanid Irregulars Khanid's Legion 428	Posted - 2015.03.12 15:27:11 - [1819] - Quote Celesae wrote: Alliances won't know anyone is even there or trying to capture a target until they have 5 minutes or less to respond - with the warp speed nerfs, a ratter/miner literally won't have the time necessary to respond by docking up, reship, and warp to the spot to attempt to defend, unless the system already has very high indecies - especially if the system under attack is not the one you're currently in, making it a problem for even a small constellation of sov ownership. If you do not have an active e-link defender ship in each system every day for your 4 hour window, how can it be argued that you do (or should) own sov in that system? Better the system reflect its TRUE state of "not actually owned by anyone, empty most of the time anyway". There seems to be a fear that under the new system, a vast majority of null systems won't have any established sov. But that's a GOOD thing. Null is mostly empty anyway; you can already spend a LOT of time in someone's sov space without ever seeing a single one of their members. Better the sov map correctly reflects that fact. The ONLY practical reason this is a concern at ALL is the current need for upgraded IHUBs in every system under Bob in order to make null AFK ratting profitable enough to pay for the captials needed to keep the MAB capital race status quo. But there are so many things wrong in that sentence already that I'm not really concerned the majority of these IHUBs are going to vanish under Fozziesov even IF CCP doesn't get around to fixing null income balance in this pass.
Veskrashen Justified Chaos Spaceship Bebop 818	Posted - 2015.03.12 15:32:45 - [1820] - Quote Borachon wrote: Veskrashen wrote: Can we move on to other link balance issues now? The biggest balance issue with Entosis links, I think, is that their current design doesn't reflect the engagement ranges and profiles that ships are balanced around. In particular, having two link range profiles (very short or very long) that can be fit on any ship interacts poorly with ship balancing and any meta. Consider long range beam laser fits, specifically optimal-bonused laser hulls with aurora and a tracking computer scripted for optimal range. Here's their engagement ranges: Retribution: 49km optimal + falloff Confessor in sharpshooter mode: 55km optimal + falloff Zealot: 105km optimal + falloff Tachyon Apoc: 220km optimal + falloff For entosis links to reflect "grid control" and not adversely impact ship meta, their ranges need to match these envelopes on these ships sizes. If an apoc cannot fit entosis links that are a significant fraction of their long engagement range, they can have grid control and still not be able to apply entosis links to a structure. Conversely, if small ships can fit links with a range much longer than their engagement range, they will be able to apply entosis links even when they don't have any real impact on the grid. Big picture, that's why I think it's important to have entosis links that match the ranges of appropriately sized weapons and can only be fit to the appropriately sized ships. One way to do this would be to have S/M/L-sized links; I could imagine this causing difficulties to the drifter drop table, however. Another option would be to buff T1 link range to 50km, so it covers long range frigates and medium range cruisers, allowing the T2 link to be fit only on BC-sized and above ships, and dropping its range slightly to 200km or so. Good points, though I think you need to use the Caldari hulls instead of the Amarr ones as the basis for comparioson. Caldari railgun platforms reach out to 100km on AFs and T1 Dessies, while cruiser hulls can engage out past 200km+ very easily. This would mean that even if you implement sized Entosis Links (which I personally think is a horrible idea) you'd still need to have 250km link range available for cruiser hulls. Given you can fit cruiser sized modules on frigates and dessies as it is, that would mean you'd still be able to get 250km links on a frigate / destroyer sized platform. Thus, aside from the issues of CCP not wanting to gate links to certain hull sizes, I don't think it'd work as you can Frankenstein fit them to smaller hulls. I believe extending the range of the shortest range module out to 50km isn't going to cause many balance issues - any non-AB brawling doctrine will likely be able to impact at least that large of an engagement range. And you'll still need to keep a long range option with roughly a 200-250km link range to allow for kiting and sniping doctrines. I think giving the longer cycle time to the longer ranged link makes sense, as kiting generally places you at less risk than brawling, and therefore needs to be balanced out by a longer exposure time on grid. We Gallente have a saying: "CCP created the Gallente Militia to train the Fighters..."

Celesae Clan Shadow Wolf Fatal Ascension 31	Posted - 2015.03.12 15:39:57 - [1821] - Quote Lena Lazair wrote: If you do not have an active e-link defender ship in each system every day for your 4 hour window, how can it be argued that you do (or should) own sov in that system? Better the system reflect its TRUE state of "not actually owned by anyone, empty most of the time anyway". I directed my concern toward freshly-captured systems, specifically, to include systems with even moderate levels - you do know how the indecies work? It takes significant amounts of time and man hours to get those levels up. So, addressing your first sentence, "emerging gameplay" is to sit on guard duty for 4 hours? And that's... fun? I illustrated my point with actual military guard duty experience. It is mind-numbing boring, and not a task I wish to ever repeat. Guard Duty Online, even if only for 4 hours a day, is not a "game" that many will want to play. You also ignored my point that the people trying to actively raise those indecies will struggle to deal with this because they'll be either stuck on guard duty or not have enough time due to the literal amounts of time it would take to reship and respond. This does not favor the "little guy" (i.e.: small alliances), not one bit.
Eli Apol Definitely a nullsec alt 371	Posted - 2015.03.12 15:41:46 - [1822] - Quote Veskrashen wrote: I think giving the longer cycle time to the longer ranged link makes sense, as kiting generally places you at less risk than brawling, and therefore needs to be balanced out by a longer exposure time on grid. I like that +1 Was about to respond with kinda the same argument about the range versus hull size argument but from the opposite direction - a completely gimpfit retribution (dual sebos w/ scripts, no propmod) manages only 160km locking range. There's already limitations on how far the smaller hulls can use the module out to so I'd propose a % targetting range decrease that applies uniformly to every hull if the module is onlined rather than adding extra modules for different hulls. I guess it's the same end result though and perhaps multiple modules might enable greater tweakability from CCP to combat horror doctrines that try to exploit the mechanics. but what would I know, I'm just a salvager
Veskrashen Justified Chaos Spaceship Bebop 819	Posted - 2015.03.12 15:50:58 - [1823] - Quote Eli Apol wrote: I guess it's the same end result though and perhaps multiple modules might enable greater tweakability from CCP to combat horror doctrines that try to exploit the mechanics. I really really don't think it's necessary to limit the performance of the module by hull size. Give it one set of stats and be done with it. Make sure both the short and long range - T1/T2 - fit on all hull sizes without forcing fitting chices that invalidate whole swathes of fleet / solo doctrines. Then let players do what players do best - find ways to screw with each other using the new tools. There's obvious issues that need to be balanced out with extreme range / extreme speed doctrines, of course. Noone's disputing that. Since the Entosis Link keeps you on grid by disabling your ability to warp, however, a lot of those concerns just boil down to how to deal with it while it's on grid. There's already multiple solutions for that, though of course your engagement window - time-wise - is an important variable. I think the vast majority of concerns can be allayed by forcing the longer cycle time on the longer ranged link. If there's something truly truly egregious that can't be fixed with a T1 damp boat or having 5 minutes to run something down and murder it, then we'd need to sort out some new solutions. We Gallente have a saying: "CCP created the Gallente Militia to train the Fighters..."
Dersen Lowery Drinking in Station 1503	Posted - 2015.03.12 15:59:39 - [1824] - Quote Just spitballing, but what if the T2 module had 100km range, but 250km overheated? That would make max-range trolling something you only do if you have grid control, or if you don't mind burning through a lot of expensive nanite paste. Proud founder and member of the Belligerent Desirables. I voted in CSM X!
xttz GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 502	Posted - 2015.03.12 16:09:27 - [1825] - Quote Veskrashen wrote: Want to make Trollceptors hard to use? Make sure the cap drain on T2 links is significant, so it'll be a complete pain to run an MWD and Link and still be cap stable. Cap use can't be a balancing factor on a module with a cycle time of several minutes. Either the activation cost is low enough for a frigate to activate, and then fully recharge its cap before the next cycle, or the activation cost is larger than the typical capacitor size and cannot be activated at all. Dersen Lowery wrote: Just spitballing, but what if the T2 module had 100km range, but 250km overheated? That would make max-range trolling something you only do if you have grid control, or if you don't mind burning through a lot of expensive nanite paste. Again, the long cycle time would ensure the module virtually always burns out before overheat can be switched off. At best you'd squeeze 1-2 cycles out before breaking the mod.
Arrendis GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 318	Posted - 2015.03.12 16:14:40 - [1826] - Quote SilentAsTheGrave wrote: This may have backfired on you. I'm several pages in and out of all the goon posts, all but one is very optimistic of the Dominion sov. Everyone from mittens to vile rat and some other known goon leaders were very optimistic. Shadoo's post was cautious. Thanks for the link regardless. You may have misunderstood. Typically, it's not the goons who think something will be terrible for goons. Having an organization that's well, highly organized allows for adaptation, and we have the manpower to enact whatever changes we decide we need to make. Instead, it's everyone else - usually those with no nullsec experience being the most enthusiastic - who insist 'look! goon tears! they know this will destroy them!'. Most of the time that's because, as with the potential trollceptors have against everyone if unleashed by the thousands, we've spotted something we think should be reworked in order to get better overall results, and we're not shy about saying so. We know we'll be fine. Even at its worst, this sov change won't do a lot to hurt us. But everyone rejoicing in 'sweet goon tears' has enjoyed those 'tears' before - as recently as pre-Phoebe, many of the same folks insisted losing the ability to jump around New Eden at will would make it impossible for the CFC to defend both Venal and Fountain. Which we then proceeded to do. We'll adapt. We're good at it.
Veskrashen Justified Chaos Spaceship Bebop 819	Posted - 2015.03.12 16:18:59 - [1827] - Quote xttz wrote: Veskrashen wrote: Want to make Trollceptors hard to use? Make sure the cap drain on T2 links is significant, so it'll be a complete pain to run an MWD and Link and still be cap stable. Cap use can't be a balancing factor on a module with a cycle time of several minutes. Either the activation cost is low enough for a frigate to activate, and then fully recharge its cap before the next cycle, or the activation cost is larger than the typical capacitor size and cannot be activated at all. Dersen Lowery wrote: Just spitballing, but what if the T2 module had 100km range, but 250km overheated? That would make max-range trolling something you only do if you have grid control, or if you don't mind burning through a lot of expensive nanite paste. Again, the long cycle time would ensure the module virtually always burns out before overheat can be switched off. At best you'd squeeze 1-2 cycles out before breaking the mod. Good points. Your thoughts on long cycle time for the long range module as a balancing factor? We Gallente have a saying: "CCP created the Gallente Militia to train the Fighters..."
Borachon GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 41	Posted - 2015.03.12 16:28:58 - [1828] - Quote Veskrashen wrote: Your thoughts on long cycle time for the long range module as a balancing factor? It's going to make sniper doctrines even more absurdly vulnerable to bombers and warpins. As it is, they rely on positioning through MJDing and warping; with a short cycle on a long range link, they can MJD out once and and wait out their short entosis timer to warp off and reposition before the enemy can warp in on them again. With a long timer on long-range entosis links, though, I expect sniper doctrines would simply be completely infeasible.
Milton Middleson Scrap Metal Squadron 561	Posted - 2015.03.12 16:35:47 - [1829] - Quote I'm still pretty firmly convinced that the anxiety over interceptors is overblown. One aspect that does strike me as off is the cycle time on the T2 link. You not only get vastly superior range to the T1 module (fair enough - that's necessary for long-ranged doctrines to function), but you also get a markedly shorter cycle time. That seems off. The tradeoff for not needing to commit to sitting on the button ought to be committing to a longer cycle time (let's arbitrarily say 10 minutes). That both means that low-commitment doctrines take longer to actually flip the point (not hugely longer, but it gives more time for someone to notice and respond), and their link ships are stuff for longer.
Dersen Lowery Drinking in Station 1503	Posted - 2015.03.12 16:40:02 - [1830] - Quote xttz wrote: Dersen Lowery wrote: Just spitballing, but what if the T2 module had 100km range, but 250km overheated? That would make max-range trolling something you only do if you have grid control, or if you don't mind burning through a lot of expensive nanite paste. Again, the long cycle time would ensure the module virtually always burns out before overheat can be switched off. At best you'd squeeze 1-2 cycles out before breaking the mod. Burnout after 1-2 cycles would be the whole point: either you have grid control and it's no big deal, or you don't and it is. But you can't just LOL around for 4 hours in a trollceptor at 250km without a significant cargo of nanite paste. Proud founder and member of the Belligerent Desirables. I voted in CSM X!

xttz GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 502	Posted - 2015.03.12 16:45:20 - [1831] - Quote Veskrashen wrote: Good points. Your thoughts on long cycle time for the long range module as a balancing factor? If CCP are planning on having a role penalty for capital ships which increases the cycle time just for them, it's going to get exponentially worse on the T2 version - exactly the version they should be using. This heavily discourages use of capital ships in sov warfare in general. Slow, expensive ships already have an increased risk of use over smaller ones due to their existing mobility. I think the only fair way is to have sized versions of the entosis link, with appropriate ranges: Frigates 25-50k Cruisers 50-100k Battleships 100-200k Capitals 150-250k
Arrendis GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 318	Posted - 2015.03.12 16:46:14 - [1832] - Quote @CCP Fozzie: Any thoughts on why, if you want this to have minimal impact on fitting and ship selection, you've made this a module at all? The overall structure of the capture mechanic is similar to FW, but FW doesn't require a module. Pursuant to my earlier post I've thought of a potential angle to address the 'supercapital blob' problem with regard to capture times: Simply expand capture time. 'Capture' characters' ships (in this scenario, characters in fleet leadership roles that contribute to the fleet's influence percentage) also impact capture time: Put any of those capture characters in a ship with a jump drive (including BlOps), and the time needed before capture begins by the 400% you're looking at for the link: from the 2/3/5 minute minimum (for 100%/75%/50% of fleet leadership in the same alliance) to 10/12/20 minutes respectively. If the ship can't dock, hit them with another 400%, to 40/48/80 minutes. Supercapital blobs can do 80 minutes sitting in space, no problem. But the enemy would have time to try to martial enough force to contest the fight - and in the case of an RF event (ie: command nodes), the longer the event runs, the more nodes spawn, which means the capital/supercapital forces would need to cover more ground, get more spread out... all in the slowest ship-types in the game.
Dave Stark 7447	Posted - 2015.03.12 16:47:47 - [1833] - Quote Aralyn Cormallen wrote: Dave Stark wrote: Aralyn Cormallen wrote: Ultimately, the purpose of the e-link is that the user must be holding the grid. if you're within 250km of the node and you can activate a link, clearly you are holding the grid. otherwise you'd be back in a station after being podded. Clearly you are on the grid, holding it, far from necessarily. You just need to be fast enough to evade the other guys on the grid, and possess enough range to kill anyone else who activates an e-link. Short-range and brawler comps clearly need not apply under these new sov rules. well if you haven't been forced off it, the only option left is that you are indeed holding the grid.
Chance Ravinne WiNGSPAN Delivery Services 124	Posted - 2015.03.12 16:55:20 - [1834] - Quote The whole 200+ km range thing seems to be the big sticking point. Has CCP commented anywhere on why this range was chosen for the T2 module? You've just read another awesome post by Chance Ravinne, CEO of EVE's #1 torpedo delivery service. Watch our misadventures on my YouTube channel: WINGSPANTT
Eli Apol Definitely a nullsec alt 372	Posted - 2015.03.12 16:59:26 - [1835] - Quote Chance Ravinne wrote: The whole 200+ km range thing seems to be the big sticking point. Has CCP commented anywhere on why this range was chosen for the T2 module? 250km is the max locking range in the game - I presume they made the T2 version able to be used on absolutely any doctrine. What doesn't help is people pulling numbers out their rears and talking about 250km interceptors etc because these are hardcapped below that amount by their base stats and slot layout (remembering remote effects can't be used on entosis ships as well) but what would I know, I'm just a salvager
Aralyn Cormallen Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation 869	Posted - 2015.03.12 17:00:48 - [1836] - Quote Borachon wrote: It's going to make sniper doctrines even more absurdly vulnerable to bombers and warpins. As it is, they rely on positioning through MJDing and warping; with a short cycle on a long range link, they can MJD out once and and wait out their short entosis timer to warp off and reposition before the enemy can warp in on them again. With a long timer on long-range entosis links, though, I expect sniper doctrines would simply be completely infeasible. Why are they using an E-link while there is a hostile fleet on grid? There is a step they have forgotten to perform. Clear the grid, then they can get their e-link on. Like non-snipers have to. Milton Middleson wrote: You not only get vastly superior range to the T1 module (fair enough - that's necessary for long-ranged doctrines to function) Why do they need it to function? Are they trying to use an E-link while there is a hostile fleet on grid? Well, theres the problem, deal with the other fleet, then it doesn't matter how far from the target you are sitting. Just like non-sniper have to. Dave Stark wrote: well if you haven't been forced off it, the only option left is that you are indeed holding the grid. Except you haven't forced the close-range doctrine off it either, so they are holding the grid just as much as you are, but for some reason that seems to be acceptable to people, snipers should be allowed to be declared victors of a stalemate. Fozzie has expressly stated he doesn't want doctrines determined by these mechanics. But while a sniper fleet is allowed to kite and snipe whilst running an e-link, and a brawler fleet cannot do so (as they will just get their e-links shot up while the kiters keep them safe and snug out of range), it pushes fleets to be required to be sniper doctrines, or you are just setting yourself for frustration and faliure.
Veskrashen Justified Chaos Spaceship Bebop 823	Posted - 2015.03.12 17:05:56 - [1837] - Quote xttz wrote: Veskrashen wrote: Good points. Your thoughts on long cycle time for the long range module as a balancing factor? If CCP are planning on having a role penalty for capital ships which increases the cycle time just for them, it's going to get exponentially worse on the T2 version - exactly the version they should be using. This heavily discourages use of capital ships in sov warfare in general. Slow, expensive ships already have an increased risk of use over smaller ones due to their existing mobility. I think the only fair way is to have sized versions of the entosis link, with appropriate ranges: Frigates 25-50k Cruisers 50-100k Battleships 100-200k Capitals 150-250k No ship size gating for Entosis Links. Same module on all ships. If you're serious about size gating, then Frigates need to be at 125-150km and Cruisers out to 250km, because platforms in those ship sizes can effectively operate at those ranges. If you do that, Frigates will Frankenstein Fit the Cruiser sized modules on, which puts you right back in the thick of Frigates with 250km Links. No need for extra long range on Capital Ships and BS, since they're gonna have ships probed right on top of them regardless since they can't generate the speed to appropriately kite. You need the sig/speed combo that frigate / destroyer / cruiser platforms provide to run a solid kiting doctrine. We Gallente have a saying: "CCP created the Gallente Militia to train the Fighters..."
Borachon GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 42	Posted - 2015.03.12 17:07:31 - [1838] - Quote Veskrashen wrote: Good points, though I think you need to use the Caldari hulls instead of the Amarr ones as the basis for comparioson. Caldari railgun platforms reach out to 100km on AFs and T1 Dessies, while cruiser hulls can engage out past 200km+ very easily. This would mean that even if you implement sized Entosis Links (which I personally think is a horrible idea) you'd still need to have 250km link range available for cruiser hulls. S/M/L links let Fozzie and the other game designers use their module flexibility to match module capabilities for different ship sizes match the ranges those ships were balanced for. That's the main point of it. If you divorce the links from the ships that can fit them, it becomes harder to keep balance and make sure that the design goals he set out are met. Its range needs to be within +-30% of the range of its long range weapon system, or it's going to make large changes to ship meta and make it hard to make the entosis link accurately reflect grid control Just to spitball, what if you gave S/M/L entosis links the fitting requirements of the smallest of the long range weapons in a size class, and the range of the second largest? So, a medium entosis link fits like a dual 150mm railgun and the range of a 200mm railgun with spike? That makes it possible to up-fit them in a destroyer, and not effect fittings too severely if you're fitting for the same size class. EDIT: and range-wise, I mean on a range-bonused hull like the eagle.
Jori McKie TURN LEFT The Camel Empire 219	Posted - 2015.03.12 17:11:15 - [1839] - Quote Veskrashen wrote: Kaarous Aldurald wrote: And as was stated here, evasion tactics not being optimal is also a goal of theirs. "Optimal" and "Viable" are two different things. Optimal would be if a kitey Link boat could always win, never be caught, and never be countered. That the only way to stop him would be to either bring your own kitey stuff or sit at zero with a defensive link and wait for him to get bored. That's not the case here, however, now that we know how losing link works - you have to wait for your current cycle to finish, then spend another cycle reconnecting before you begin making any progress towards capture. That means that there are a multitude of counters to a kiting comp that do not rely on bringing your own kiting comp. Viable on the other hand... if you made Entosis Links inflict a severe speed penalty, kiting comps would not be viable - they would be unable to hold range. Kiting comps should remain viable, even if they're not optimal. Changing the subject a bit, what about swapping the ranges on the T1/T2 links? T1 links would have the 250km effective range, but with a 5 minute cycle time. That would mean that someone using a T1 link who lost lock or had to evade would suffer a much greater time penalty before being able to make progress on that (or another) structure. Kiting ships would be forced to remain on field much longer - up to 5 minutes at a time - since the Entosis Link would prevent them from warping out. While T2 links would have a shorter range, they'd connect much faster, making it easier to stop someone else's progress and to reconnect should you lose your own. It would also allow you to disengage from brawls faster, rather than being pinned on field for 5 minutes in a brawling comp with no remote support available. This would also force capitals / supercapitals to either remain close to their objective to take advantage of the 2 minute cycle time on the T2 link, or be forced to face tank an enemy fleet for up to 5 minutes at a time. Something to consider at least. EDIT: Thinking a bit more about this, it could actually force "interesting gameplay choices". You can either choose long range and be forced to stay on field longer, or sack up and go for a brawling comp and be pinned down for less time. Of course Bombers would have a field day with a brawling comp balled up within 30km of an objective, but bombers are up for review anyway. Had the same thought "It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." --áAbrazzar
Eli Apol Definitely a nullsec alt 372	Posted - 2015.03.12 17:23:59 - [1840] - Quote Borachon wrote: Veskrashen wrote: Good points, though I think you need to use the Caldari hulls instead of the Amarr ones as the basis for comparioson. Caldari railgun platforms reach out to 100km on AFs and T1 Dessies, while cruiser hulls can engage out past 200km+ very easily. This would mean that even if you implement sized Entosis Links (which I personally think is a horrible idea) you'd still need to have 250km link range available for cruiser hulls. S/M/L links let Fozzie and the other game designers use their module flexibility to match module capabilities for different ship sizes match the ranges those ships were balanced for. That's the main point of it. If you divorce the links from the ships that can fit them, it becomes harder to keep balance and make sure that the design goals he set out are met. Its range needs to be within +-30% of the range of its long range weapon system, or it's going to make large changes to ship meta and make it hard to make the entosis link accurately reflect grid control Just to spitball, what if you gave S/M/L entosis links the fitting requirements of the smallest of the long range weapons in a size class, and the range of the second largest? So, a medium entosis link fits like a dual 150mm railgun and the range of a 200mm railgun with spike? That makes it possible to up-fit them in a destroyer, and not effect fittings too severely if you're fitting for the same size class. Essentially this becomes even narrower in scope. As you agreed, the Medium needs to allow for sniping cruisers which can hit out to the maximum range permitted in the game. Therefore the M and L versions are both going to be capped at 250km and differ only by name essentially meaning we only two versions: Frigates and Everything-Except-Frigates. Potentially this could be required as it is just about possible to gimpfit certain frigates to achieve the maximum range, a 3x range-scripted sebo Kitsune is the one I just hacked out in EFT - any frigate with fewer midslots is going to struggling to do this though, for example someone was talking about sniper Retributions earlier but they can't physically target further than 160km from fittings alone because of only 2 midslots - although that can be crept a little closer to the 200km mark with fleet boosts and a targetting implant. but what would I know, I'm just a salvager

Milton Middleson Scrap Metal Squadron 562	Posted - 2015.03.12 17:25:26 - [1841] - Quote Quote: Why do they need it to function? Are they trying to use an E-link while there is a hostile fleet on grid? Well, theres the problem, deal with the other fleet, then it doesn't matter how far from the target you are sitting. Because a) while you're parking your sniper fleet on the sov button, you're exposing yourself in a huge way, and b) it means you can't effectively contest the button with sniper comps unless you have already cleared the field, so unless the fight is over quite quickly, you may lose even though your opponent never actually achieved grid supremacy. I certainly don't mind disadvantaging kiting/sniper fleets in some manner, since there must be a meaningful tradeoff for getting away with lesser commitment, but that seems rather harsh.
SilentAsTheGrave Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective 115	Posted - 2015.03.12 17:56:27 - [1842] - Quote So basically only unoccupied systems will be easy prey for these interceptors of doom. I'm ok with this. It strangely sounds like it is working as intended. Regardless, CCP said that if something gets out of hand they will make some adjustments.
Borachon GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 42	Posted - 2015.03.12 18:03:51 - [1843] - Quote Eli Apol wrote: Essentially this becomes even narrower in scope. As you agreed, the Medium needs to allow for sniping cruisers which can hit out to the maximum range permitted in the game. Therefore the M and L versions are both going to be capped at 250km and differ only by name essentially meaning we only two versions: Frigates and Everything-Except-Frigates. I see your point, but as it is, I think that the current design doesn't meet the design goals Fozzie set out. The modules'stats don't match the range limitations on which hulls are balanced. There needs to be a penalty for the long range link that disadvantages short range fits that use it, but not long-range fits that use it. Long cycle time means they just get bombed off the field because they can't reposition effectively in a reasonable amount of time, even when fitting an MJD. Sig bloom makes them easier to probe and hurts long range fits more than short range fits, so that's a non-starter. Other ideas?
Veskrashen Justified Chaos Spaceship Bebop 823	Posted - 2015.03.12 18:16:33 - [1844] - Quote Borachon wrote: Eli Apol wrote: Essentially this becomes even narrower in scope. As you agreed, the Medium needs to allow for sniping cruisers which can hit out to the maximum range permitted in the game. Therefore the M and L versions are both going to be capped at 250km and differ only by name essentially meaning we only two versions: Frigates and Everything-Except-Frigates. I see your point, but as it is, I think that the current design doesn't meet the design goals Fozzie set out. The modules'stats don't match the range limitations on which hulls are balanced. There needs to be a penalty for the long range link that disadvantages short range-oriented ships that use it, but not long-range oriented-ships that use it. Long cycle time means they just get bombed off the field because they can't reposition effectively in a reasonable amount of time, even when fitting an MJD. Sig bloom makes them easier to probe and hurts long range fits more than short range fits, so that's a non-starter. Other ideas? Well, you're definitely look at this from a Fleet vs. Fleet perspective rather than Trollceptors Online, for which I salute you. The issue with long cycle times influencing kiting doctrines due to probes and bombers is definitely interesting, and not something I considered since I'm much more of a small gang guy fighting in deadspace. We know that CCP is aware of the bomber / probe issues and they're being looked at in the context of Fozziesov, so I feel reasonably confident that they'll be looking at ways to mitigate prober + bomber = you die if you can't warp off. That said, I think that's equally the case whether the cycle time is 2 minutes or 5 minutes - if you're probing on grid and warping on grid, you're still only talking a few seconds in warp before landing / launching / buggering off. If the cycle time is much more than 30 seconds in any case at all, you're at risk for being bombed off field. So the issue there is more an issue with Bombers + Combat Probes, rather than an Entosis Link module issue in and of itself. Absent bombers, it seems that the longer cycle time would not be an issue - that right? We Gallente have a saying: "CCP created the Gallente Militia to train the Fighters..."
Eli Apol Definitely a nullsec alt 373	Posted - 2015.03.12 18:28:26 - [1845] - Quote Borachon wrote: Eli Apol wrote: Essentially this becomes even narrower in scope. As you agreed, the Medium needs to allow for sniping cruisers which can hit out to the maximum range permitted in the game. Therefore the M and L versions are both going to be capped at 250km and differ only by name essentially meaning we only two versions: Frigates and Everything-Except-Frigates. I see your point, but as it is, I think that the current design doesn't meet the design goals Fozzie set out. The modules'stats don't match the range limitations on which hulls are balanced. There needs to be a penalty for the long range link that disadvantages short range-oriented ships that use it, but not long-range oriented-ships that use it. Long cycle time means they just get bombed off the field because they can't reposition effectively in a reasonable amount of time, even when fitting an MJD. Sig bloom makes them easier to probe and hurts long range fits more than short range fits, so that's a non-starter. Other ideas? I'm still sticking to my guns with a targetting range penalty to any ship that has the module onlined. Initially I was throwing around 50% as a number but I just ran the math and that pretty much negates all subcaps except a dedicated marauder setup in bastion from using it at full range :-S Running some more numbers, 25% just about pulls an absolutely gimped Kitsune down to the 250 mark (which I think is going to be the furthest of all the frigates but maybe there's something that has a longer base targetting range?). So I'd amend that to something between 25-50%...33? It means that a sniper/kitey fleet needs to spend maybe just an extra midslot on achieving the max range whilst also means that ships can fight with it offlined and then reonline after the grid is won. For the ceptor fits it's looking like knocking them down from 120ish km to a much more manageable 80 or so (not that they can't be caught anyways, but caught easier is always nice) but what would I know, I'm just a salvager
Alavaria Fera GoonWaffe 6619	Posted - 2015.03.12 18:33:39 - [1846] - Quote SilentAsTheGrave wrote: Regardless, CCP said that if something gets out of hand they will make some adjustments. How reassured you are is so cute and adorable. You're a very brave newbie ^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears. Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 15472	Posted - 2015.03.12 18:37:02 - [1847] - Quote SilentAsTheGrave wrote: So basically only unoccupied systems will be easy prey for these interceptors of doom. I'm ok with this. It strangely sounds like it is working as intended. Regardless, CCP said that if something gets out of hand they will make some adjustments. They aren't there to take space, their job is to harass the enemy into defending their sov every day while not engaging them in any fights. If they do take space then that's just an added bonus. The entire point of them is to sap the moral of the defenders over the span of months. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
Alavaria Fera GoonWaffe 6619	Posted - 2015.03.12 19:20:04 - [1848] - Quote baltec1 wrote: SilentAsTheGrave wrote: So basically only unoccupied systems will be easy prey for these interceptors of doom. I'm ok with this. It strangely sounds like it is working as intended. Regardless, CCP said that if something gets out of hand they will make some adjustments. They aren't there to take space, their job is to harass the enemy into defending their sov every day while not engaging them in any fights. If they do take space then that's just an added bonus. The entire point of them is to sap the moral of the defenders over the span of months. Trolling us to death is not in any way "out of hand" I'm sure. Indeed, in many ways it might be the best outcome. ^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears. Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
Borachon GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 42	Posted - 2015.03.12 19:43:40 - [1849] - Quote Veskrashen wrote: The issue with long cycle times influencing kiting doctrines due to probes and bombers is definitely interesting, and not something I considered since I'm much more of a small gang guy fighting in deadspace. We know that CCP is aware of the bomber / probe issues and they're being looked at in the context of Fozziesov, so I feel reasonably confident that they'll be looking at ways to mitigate prober + bomber = you die if you can't warp off. That said, I think that's equally the case whether the cycle time is 2 minutes or 5 minutes - if you're probing on grid and warping on grid, you're still only talking a few seconds in warp before landing / launching / buggering off. If the cycle time is much more than 30 seconds in any case at all, you're at risk for being bombed off field. I don't think so, for two reasons: the MJD mecahnics of these fleets and the upcoming probing changes that we all anticipate. I expect it'll take at least a minute to probe out and position bombers on a fleet after these change. Given that: You warp in and start a minute into your entosis cycle. A minute later, bombers are incoming and you MJD away. A minute later your entosis cycle is up - you have the choice of either dropping it and warping off to reposition again, or braving it for another two minute while your MJD cooldown finishes one minute later. 2 minutes is actually a perfect amount of time to mesh well with MJD mechanics and make for interesting choices.
Borachon GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 42	Posted - 2015.03.12 19:44:45 - [1850] - Quote Eli Apol wrote: It means that a sniper/kitey fleet needs to spend maybe just an extra midslot on achieving the max range They're already burning a highslot; making any ship composition burn an extra scarse midslot to contest sov is probably a very bad idea.

Eli Apol Definitely a nullsec alt 373	Posted - 2015.03.12 20:00:08 - [1851] - Quote Borachon wrote: Eli Apol wrote: It means that a sniper/kitey fleet needs to spend maybe just an extra midslot on achieving the max range They're already burning a highslot; making any ship composition burn an extra scarse midslot to contest sov is probably a very bad idea. I'd have to look at more fits to have a better idea tbh, been looking at frigs versus sniper Rokhs versus bastion marauders just to compare the edge cases rather than looking at the mid range ships :) They do have the option of moving 33% closer either way though. but what would I know, I'm just a salvager
Alli Ginthur The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc 52	Posted - 2015.03.12 21:06:20 - [1852] - Quote Maybe I missed the answer before, but with the question on bombs and combat probing, are the capture points going to be like large fw complexes, ie ungated deadspace that doesnt allow warping on grid inside, or like the sov structures where warping around on grid is the order of the day? Edit: my assumption is that it would act like the structures and not restrict warping on grid, but just wanted to hear for sure.
Lena Lazair Khanid Irregulars Khanid's Legion 430	Posted - 2015.03.12 21:30:59 - [1853] - Quote baltec1 wrote: They aren't there to take space, their job is to harass the enemy into defending their sov every day while not engaging them in any fights. If they do take space then that's just an added bonus. The entire point of them is to sap the moral of the defenders over the span of months. Wait wait wait... you mean every single day goons will voluntarily fly predictably fit inty's into my space during my prime time play hours? I don't have to go on a 60j roam looking for them? I don't have to camp a gate for 4 days waiting for someone to wander by? I can just sit in my home system in my favorite anti-trollceptor setup of the day and they will continuously bring me PvP and KMs on a regular basis? Holy crap, please sign me up for this morale-draining experience.
Alavaria Fera GoonWaffe 6620	Posted - 2015.03.12 21:59:55 - [1854] - Quote Lena Lazair wrote: baltec1 wrote: They aren't there to take space, their job is to harass the enemy into defending their sov every day while not engaging them in any fights. If they do take space then that's just an added bonus. The entire point of them is to sap the moral of the defenders over the span of months. Wait wait wait... you mean every single day goons will voluntarily fly predictably fit inty's into my space during my prime time play hours? I don't have to go on a 60j roam looking for them? I don't have to camp a gate for 4 days waiting for someone to wander by? I can just sit in my home system in my favorite anti-trollceptor setup of the day and they will continuously bring me PvP and KMs on a regular basis? Holy crap, please sign me up for this morale-draining experience. Nice spin. ^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears. Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
PotatoOverdose Royal Black Watch Highlanders DARKNESS. 2663	Posted - 2015.03.12 22:00:47 - [1855] - Quote Lena Lazair wrote: Wait wait wait... you mean every single day goons will voluntarily fly predictably fit inty's into my space during my prime time play hours? I don't have to go on a 60j roam looking for them? I don't have to camp a gate for 4 days waiting for someone to wander by? I can just sit in my home system in my favorite anti-trollceptor setup of the day and they will continuously bring me PvP and KMs on a regular basis? Holy crap, please sign me up for this morale-draining experience. Best argument for this system, really. Any interceptor that cannot warp away with its link active, that compromises its speed (via targetting range rigs instead of speed and agility rigs), and that neuters it's midslots (due to sebos) to get 110km+ lock range is simply a killmail. I like killmails. Honestly, once people get tired of loosing so-called "trollceptors," I'd bet some interesting fights will start to happen in an around the sov structures and nodes spread across all of sov nullsec. Mind you, the proposed system isn't perfect. The 4 hour time window doesn't sit well with me, but that's a topic for another thread, I guess...
Falin Whalen GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 763	Posted - 2015.03.12 22:21:50 - [1856] - Quote Lena Lazair wrote: baltec1 wrote: They aren't there to take space, their job is to harass the enemy into defending their sov every day while not engaging them in any fights. If they do take space then that's just an added bonus. The entire point of them is to sap the moral of the defenders over the span of months. Wait wait wait... you mean every single day goons will voluntarily fly predictably fit inty's into my space during my prime time play hours? I don't have to go on a 60j roam looking for them? I don't have to camp a gate for 4 days waiting for someone to wander by? I can just sit in my home system in my favorite anti-trollceptor setup of the day and they will continuously bring me PvP and KMs on a regular basis? Holy crap, please sign me up for this morale-draining experience. I like how you think we will be going to your home system. Youre so cute. No we will be running around where you are not and you have to play wack-a-mole till you get fed up not catching any of us, and having to go on CTA button orbiting ops every day after till the servers go dark, or you quit and go to highsec. I think you will quit before we do. For you. "it's only because of their stupidity that they're able to be so sure of themselves." The Trial - Franz Kafka-á
Veskrashen Justified Chaos Spaceship Bebop 824	Posted - 2015.03.12 22:26:24 - [1857] - Quote Borachon wrote: Veskrashen wrote: The issue with long cycle times influencing kiting doctrines due to probes and bombers is definitely interesting, and not something I considered since I'm much more of a small gang guy fighting in deadspace. We know that CCP is aware of the bomber / probe issues and they're being looked at in the context of Fozziesov, so I feel reasonably confident that they'll be looking at ways to mitigate prober + bomber = you die if you can't warp off. That said, I think that's equally the case whether the cycle time is 2 minutes or 5 minutes - if you're probing on grid and warping on grid, you're still only talking a few seconds in warp before landing / launching / buggering off. If the cycle time is much more than 30 seconds in any case at all, you're at risk for being bombed off field. I don't think so, for two reasons: the MJD mecahnics of these fleets and the upcoming probing changes that we all anticipate. I expect it'll take at least a minute to probe out and position bombers on a fleet after these change. Given that: You warp in and start a minute into your entosis cycle. A minute later, bombers are incoming and you MJD away. A minute later your entosis cycle is up - you have the choice of either dropping it and warping off to reposition again, or braving it for another two minute while your MJD cooldown finishes one minute later. 2 minutes is actually a perfect amount of time to mesh well with MJD mechanics and make for interesting choices. Problem is that you need 1 cycle to connect to the structure, then progress starts. So if you drop Link or warp after the end of your first cycle, you don't actually make any progress on the timer. You need to let it start another cycle to make any progress, in which case you're stuck for another 2 minutes unable to warp, or you have to wait out a 2 minute cycle again to reconnect. When you're talking larger fleets, I don't think there's going to be many line members activating Entosis Links anyway... you're going to get blapped the first sign that you're active and can't receive reps. I can see ninja-Linking with low sig fast ships like interceptors to harass larger fleets, but man... bombers and probes really skew things until they're fixed. We Gallente have a saying: "CCP created the Gallente Militia to train the Fighters..."
Veskrashen Justified Chaos Spaceship Bebop 824	Posted - 2015.03.12 22:29:06 - [1858] - Quote Falin Whalen wrote: Lena Lazair wrote: baltec1 wrote: They aren't there to take space, their job is to harass the enemy into defending their sov every day while not engaging them in any fights. If they do take space then that's just an added bonus. The entire point of them is to sap the moral of the defenders over the span of months. Wait wait wait... you mean every single day goons will voluntarily fly predictably fit inty's into my space during my prime time play hours? I don't have to go on a 60j roam looking for them? I don't have to camp a gate for 4 days waiting for someone to wander by? I can just sit in my home system in my favorite anti-trollceptor setup of the day and they will continuously bring me PvP and KMs on a regular basis? Holy crap, please sign me up for this morale-draining experience. I like how you think we will be going to your home system. Youre so cute. No we will be running around where you are not and you have to play wack-a-mole till you get fed up not catching any of us, and having to go on CTA button orbiting ops every day after till the servers go dark, or you quit and go to highsec. I think you will quit before we do. For you. It's funny that you think any competent sov-holding alliance will have inactive / unpopulated systems after this drops. We Gallente have a saying: "CCP created the Gallente Militia to train the Fighters..."
Veskrashen Justified Chaos Spaceship Bebop 824	Posted - 2015.03.12 22:32:17 - [1859] - Quote Lena Lazair wrote: baltec1 wrote: They aren't there to take space, their job is to harass the enemy into defending their sov every day while not engaging them in any fights. If they do take space then that's just an added bonus. The entire point of them is to sap the moral of the defenders over the span of months. Wait wait wait... you mean every single day goons will voluntarily fly predictably fit inty's into my space during my prime time play hours? I don't have to go on a 60j roam looking for them? I don't have to camp a gate for 4 days waiting for someone to wander by? I can just sit in my home system in my favorite anti-trollceptor setup of the day and they will continuously bring me PvP and KMs on a regular basis? Holy crap, please sign me up for this morale-draining experience. Best part about FW, really. We don't have to "roam" more than about 2-3 jumps from a home system to find a fight - and those buggers get to run away at will, unlike folks with an active Entosis Link who can't warp or cloak for 2-5 minutes at a time. Ya'll are gonna have a field day for a while. We Gallente have a saying: "CCP created the Gallente Militia to train the Fighters..."
Borachon GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 42	Posted - 2015.03.12 22:53:07 - [1860] - Quote Eli Apol wrote: Borachon wrote: Eli Apol wrote: It means that a sniper/kitey fleet needs to spend maybe just an extra midslot on achieving the max range They're already burning a highslot; making any ship composition burn an extra scarse midslot to contest sov is probably a very bad idea. I'd have to look at more fits to have a better idea tbh, been looking at frigs versus sniper Rokhs versus bastion marauders just to compare the edge cases rather than looking at the mid range ships :) They do have the option of moving 33% closer either way though. You're mandating either a big change to engagement profiles or a big change to fits; it's directly contrary to one of Fozzie's stated goals. Looking at it, the one thing that real long range fits like Eagles/Sniping t3 BCs/etc. need less of is pure speed. (Note, that doesn't apply to kiting frigate doctrines like the CFC harpyfleet). What if you upped the range of the T1 entosis link to 50km or so to support most kiting frigates doctrines, and give the T2 one all of the penalties of a hictor bubble (increased agility, reduced velocity bonus from AB/MWD). That way, MJD ships (sniping BSes and t3 BCs) can align for their microjumps more quickly, but short range ships won't want to fit them as they can't control range as effectively. In addition, the effect is already in game, and since all supercaps must die, getting more pilots used to handling ships with hictor penalties active would be good, too.

Lena Lazair Khanid Irregulars Khanid's Legion 432	Posted - 2015.03.12 22:55:48 - [1861] - Quote Falin Whalen wrote: I like how you think we will be going to your home system. Youre so cute. No we will be running around where you are not and you have to play wack-a-mole till you get fed up not catching any of us, and having to go on CTA button orbiting ops every day after till the servers go dark, or you quit and go to highsec. I think you will quit before we do. For you. Why would we have more than one or two systems to harass, unless we actually had pilots in each of those systems to defend them? This idea that small alliances, or ANYone, will be able to hold dozens of systems at an average density of 0 to 2 people per system is pretty much a non-starter in Fozziesov. So yeah, if you want to harass my sov, you'll be coming to my one or two home systems. I don't really care how the large blocs manage to sort out their defensive problems :)
Miner Hottie Valar Morghulis. Goonswarm Federation 81	Posted - 2015.03.12 23:05:02 - [1862] - Quote Lena Lazair wrote: baltec1 wrote: They aren't there to take space, their job is to harass the enemy into defending their sov every day while not engaging them in any fights. If they do take space then that's just an added bonus. The entire point of them is to sap the moral of the defenders over the span of months. Wait wait wait... you mean every single day goons will voluntarily fly predictably fit inty's into my space during my prime time play hours? I don't have to go on a 60j roam looking for them? I don't have to camp a gate for 4 days waiting for someone to wander by? I can just sit in my home system in my favorite anti-trollceptor setup of the day and they will continuously bring me PvP and KMs on a regular basis? Holy crap, please sign me up for this morale-draining experience. Be careful what you wish for. It's all about how hot my mining lasers get.
Miner Hottie Valar Morghulis. Goonswarm Federation 81	Posted - 2015.03.12 23:11:26 - [1863] - Quote Veskrashen wrote: Falin Whalen wrote: Lena Lazair wrote: baltec1 wrote: They aren't there to take space, their job is to harass the enemy into defending their sov every day while not engaging them in any fights. If they do take space then that's just an added bonus. The entire point of them is to sap the moral of the defenders over the span of months. Wait wait wait... you mean every single day goons will voluntarily fly predictably fit inty's into my space during my prime time play hours? I don't have to go on a 60j roam looking for them? I don't have to camp a gate for 4 days waiting for someone to wander by? I can just sit in my home system in my favorite anti-trollceptor setup of the day and they will continuously bring me PvP and KMs on a regular basis? Holy crap, please sign me up for this morale-draining experience. I like how you think we will be going to your home system. Youre so cute. No we will be running around where you are not and you have to play wack-a-mole till you get fed up not catching any of us, and having to go on CTA button orbiting ops every day after till the servers go dark, or you quit and go to highsec. I think you will quit before we do. For you. It's funny that you think any competent sov-holding alliance will have inactive / unpopulated systems after this drops. It's funny that you think people will play this game for all of prime time perfectly covering their hovel 0.1 systems for months on end without a break... every.single.day.... I predict that the 1st holiday weekend (probably 4th of July) will see sov carnage. Keep beating that drum that this change is good, because it is... for us. It's all about how hot my mining lasers get.
Falin Whalen GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 763	Posted - 2015.03.12 23:51:48 - [1864] - Quote Miner Hottie wrote: Veskrashen wrote: Falin Whalen wrote: Lena Lazair wrote: baltec1 wrote: They aren't there to take space, their job is to harass the enemy into defending their sov every day while not engaging them in any fights. If they do take space then that's just an added bonus. The entire point of them is to sap the moral of the defenders over the span of months. Wait wait wait... you mean every single day goons will voluntarily fly predictably fit inty's into my space during my prime time play hours? I don't have to go on a 60j roam looking for them? I don't have to camp a gate for 4 days waiting for someone to wander by? I can just sit in my home system in my favorite anti-trollceptor setup of the day and they will continuously bring me PvP and KMs on a regular basis? Holy crap, please sign me up for this morale-draining experience. I like how you think we will be going to your home system. Youre so cute. No we will be running around where you are not and you have to play wack-a-mole till you get fed up not catching any of us, and having to go on CTA button orbiting ops every day after till the servers go dark, or you quit and go to highsec. I think you will quit before we do. For you. It's funny that you think any competent sov-holding alliance will have inactive / unpopulated systems after this drops. It's funny that you think people will play this game for all of prime time perfectly covering their hovel 0.1 systems for months on end without a break... every.single.day.... I predict that the 1st holiday weekend (probably 4th of July) will see sov carnage. Keep beating that drum that this change is good, because it is... for us. Oh c'mon now, we will only let the puppy FCs gnaw on them like a chewtoy. They are so cute when they are murdering clueless idiots who think they got a chance. "it's only because of their stupidity that they're able to be so sure of themselves." The Trial - Franz Kafka-á
Miner Hottie Valar Morghulis. Goonswarm Federation 83	Posted - 2015.03.13 00:38:05 - [1865] - Quote Falin Whalen wrote: Oh c'mon now, we will only let the puppy FCs gnaw on them like a chewtoy. They are so cute when they are murdering clueless idiots who think they got a chance. Too true and it will be funny to read the complaints of some hi sec wanna be when we have bubbled wrapped his station and POS. That being said, you know as well as i do that once DBRB figures this out all semblance of cute and adorable goes out the window. It's all about how hot my mining lasers get.
Syn Shi School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State 135	Posted - 2015.03.13 00:57:12 - [1866] - Quote The Goon blob and QQ is strong.
Saidin Thor The Odin Conspiracy 52	Posted - 2015.03.13 02:23:12 - [1867] - Quote CCP Fozzie wrote: Soldarius wrote: Now this begs another question: If I am in the process of capturing a sov structure I lose lock and then reestablish lock before the module cycle time is completed, will capture recommence immediately or do I have to wait to start a new cycle on my Entosis Link? In that situation you would need to wait for you current cycle to complete, then activate the module again (triggering another warmup cycle before the module starts capturing). This means if you lose lock, you wonGÇÖt be able to contest control of the structure for at least 2 minutes, and up to 4 minutes (the remainder of your current cycle, then the warmup cycle after the new activation). I think this mechanic will incentivize e-war (specifically range damps) to a concerning degree. A single damp ship can effectively cycle through a large number of "other" ships and cancel out their entosis links by massing range damps every 2 minutes, keeping any of them from actually moving to the capture stage. A. In turn, this incentivizes a high proportion of the attacking/defending ships in a fleet to carry the link module (to cancel out the effect a small number of e-war ships might have). Incentivizing a large proportion of ships to sacrifice a high-slot would, in turn, favor drone doctrines in the meta (since utility high-slots are inherently less valuable and more common for drone ships than they are for turret or missile ships). Whether or not this should be a concern from a balance perspective I can't say, but it's at least worth considering. B. Another concern is that, although single/small groups of e-war only ships could easily be dealt with by an attacking or defending fleet, small groups of tanked e-war ships and logistic support could be VERY effective at harassing small/medium-size fleets (40-60 or so ships), while almost worthless for harassing larger fleets (since you can much more effectively volley ships off the field after a certain point and scaling e-war to make sure you get every ship with an entosis link becomes very difficult as the number of links grows). This seems like an undesirable outcome since smaller groups are subject to specific disadvantages. C. Finally, mechanic seems to be extremely heavy handed for capital ships. With the current proposed cycle time increase, they already have to dedicate at least 20 minutes if they want to make any progress towards capturing an objective (10 minutes warm up, 10 minutes for the next cycle). Losing lock just once can add up to 20 minutes of dead time (if you lose lock RIGHT at the beginning of your second cycle, meaning you need to finish the current cycle for 10 minutes and then warm up for another 10 minutes)--which seems a little harsh. One possible solution (I'm sure there are many others), to address at least B and C would be to halt capture progress when lock is lost, but resume capture progress as soon as the target lock is re-established. If the module cycles while the lock is still lost, then the module would need to start the process over (warm up again for a cycle), but allowing the capture cycle to continue as long as the lock is re-established would minimize the effects of e-war cycling (the biggest problem from B) and make e-war against capital ships less overwhelmingly effective.
FT Diomedes The Graduates Forged of Fire 870	Posted - 2015.03.13 02:41:32 - [1868] - Quote Lena Lazair wrote: Falin Whalen wrote: I like how you think we will be going to your home system. Youre so cute. No we will be running around where you are not and you have to play wack-a-mole till you get fed up not catching any of us, and having to go on CTA button orbiting ops every day after till the servers go dark, or you quit and go to highsec. I think you will quit before we do. For you. Why would we have more than one or two systems to harass, unless we actually had pilots in each of those systems to defend them? This idea that small alliances, or ANYone, will be able to hold dozens of systems at an average density of 0 to 2 people per system is pretty much a non-starter in Fozziesov. So yeah, if you want to harass my sov, you'll be coming to my one or two home systems. I don't really care how the large blocs manage to sort out their defensive problems :) So, how many people can you support in a given system? Do you have any idea about that? The Greatest Ship Ever. Credit to Shahfluffers.
Alavaria Fera GoonWaffe 6620	Posted - 2015.03.13 03:16:13 - [1869] - Quote Miner Hottie wrote: Falin Whalen wrote: Oh c'mon now, we will only let the puppy FCs gnaw on them like a chewtoy. They are so cute when they are murdering clueless idiots who think they got a chance. Too true and it will be funny to read the complaints of some hi sec wanna be when we have bubbled wrapped his station and POS. That being said, you know as well as i do that once DBRB figures this out all semblance of cute and adorable goes out the window. I would be less worried about DBRB than the leader of our sov-trolling SIG that doesn't exist ^^ 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 6620	Posted - 2015.03.13 03:17:27 - [1870] - Quote FT Diomedes wrote: Lena Lazair wrote: Falin Whalen wrote: I like how you think we will be going to your home system. Youre so cute. No we will be running around where you are not and you have to play wack-a-mole till you get fed up not catching any of us, and having to go on CTA button orbiting ops every day after till the servers go dark, or you quit and go to highsec. I think you will quit before we do. For you. Why would we have more than one or two systems to harass, unless we actually had pilots in each of those systems to defend them? This idea that small alliances, or ANYone, will be able to hold dozens of systems at an average density of 0 to 2 people per system is pretty much a non-starter in Fozziesov. So yeah, if you want to harass my sov, you'll be coming to my one or two home systems. I don't really care how the large blocs manage to sort out their defensive problems :) So, how many people can you support in a given system? Do you have any idea about that? Edit - not only that... have you ever run logistics to really deep 0.0 space as a small alliance or corporation? That alone can be a full-time job. There is a reason that larger organizations, who can distribute the effort required more widely, are more successful. If it is less than the number needed to hold it then guess what Suddenly a wasteland. Op success. Great success!! It's more of a shakeup than fatigue, that's for sure. Remember when being tired meant we would be more active? ^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears. Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.

baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 15477	Posted - 2015.03.13 03:32:59 - [1871] - Quote Lena Lazair wrote: Falin Whalen wrote: I like how you think we will be going to your home system. Youre so cute. No we will be running around where you are not and you have to play wack-a-mole till you get fed up not catching any of us, and having to go on CTA button orbiting ops every day after till the servers go dark, or you quit and go to highsec. I think you will quit before we do. For you. Why would we have more than one or two systems to harass, unless we actually had pilots in each of those systems to defend them? This idea that small alliances, or ANYone, will be able to hold dozens of systems at an average density of 0 to 2 people per system is pretty much a non-starter in Fozziesov. So yeah, if you want to harass my sov, you'll be coming to my one or two home systems. I don't really care how the large blocs manage to sort out their defensive problems :) You have two members, you aren't holding anything. Using cepters we can take your space with zero risk of losses. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
Alavaria Fera GoonWaffe 6622	Posted - 2015.03.13 03:57:31 - [1872] - Quote I should point out that even if we reduce the amount of extraneous sov we hold, for whatever reason given, it will be "didn't want that sov anyway EH", "goon tears", and "CFC is collapsing" Basically, you should totally sign up with massadeath to join in as Moa picks apart our sov laser-ridden corpse. ^^ 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 6622	Posted - 2015.03.13 04:00:22 - [1873] - Quote It's actually fine to hold less sov (specifically, the non-station ones) since the enemy can't hold it long enough to do dangerous things like put up jump bridges (now very fatiguing) or cyno jammers (and you can take gates now) Since, you know, it's basically asking to be sov trolled if you try and get a foothold sov... now with stations that is trouble, then again enemy is unlikely to seriously stage there if you can take it back fast too (since command nodes will spawn probably even further into your home, making it hard for them to defend) ^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears. Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
Kenneth Feld Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion 222	Posted - 2015.03.13 04:10:17 - [1874] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Arthur Aihaken wrote: Why not make the Entosis link like polarized weapons? Simply equipping it drops all your resistances to 0. Makes defending way too easy in every situation where the attackers decide to fight. If you own the grid, what difference does it make what your resists are. It would prevent ninja efforts more than anything, also trollceptor wrecks would litter the grid
Alp Khan GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 303	Posted - 2015.03.13 04:10:33 - [1875] - Quote Veskrashen wrote: CCP Fozzie wrote: Soldarius wrote: Now this begs another question: If I am in the process of capturing a sov structure I lose lock and then reestablish lock before the module cycle time is completed, will capture recommence immediately or do I have to wait to start a new cycle on my Entosis Link? In that situation you would need to wait for you current cycle to complete, then activate the module again (triggering another warmup cycle before the module starts capturing). This means if you lose lock, you wonGÇÖt be able to contest control of the structure for at least 2 minutes, and up to 4 minutes (the remainder of your current cycle, then the warmup cycle after the new activation). And in one fell stroke, Fozzie has completely neutered Trollceptors. If you break lock on the structure, you're not getting any more progress for several minutes. If you bugger off as soon as you see someone on scan, one dude in a combat interceptor can effectively chase off any number of Trollceptors. Hell, Hero Keres and Hero Maulus and Hero Griffin and... well, anything small, fast, with a long lock range and any damp / ECM module - will be able to single handedly save dozens of systems just by warping on grid, breaking the Trollceptor's lock, and moving on to the next. So, no longer any reason to nerf Trollceptors, since the solution is simple, achievable, scalable, and viable. Can we move on to other link balance issues now? No, he didn't. You should not take up the pretense of trollceptor problem being addressed. First of all, jamming is a worthless mechanic which is reliant on extremely specific hull types, such as Falcon you mentioned, to be worthwhile. Second of all, even with a Jamming dedicated hull, a trollceptor has options available through ECCM. It can get away with having virtually no tank at all. (viable for trollceptor, because it's not going to be pinned down or receive persistent DPS from anything) Third of all, even if we ignore the facts pointing out that ECM is not a counter against a trollceptor, a trollceptor is simply a cheap, uncatchable ship. This is the gist of the problem. It isn't going to get caught, and even if it ends up getting killed due to pilot error, it isn't a significant loss and it makes it so that the attacker doesn't need to commit or take risks. The attacker can simply hop into another trollceptor from his trollceptor stash at his home station, and continue trolling. The system as proposed is very much broken, as it does not require for the attacker to commit and take any significant risks to be able to dispute sovereignty in null-sec. Trollceptor makes the problem get even worse, as the attacker finds himself in a position that he doesn't even have to commit and take the risk of losing a cheap T2 frigate to dispute sovereignty. This has the potential for making sovereign null-sec an inhabited wasteland, as investing tens of billions for the infrastructure of a single system makes little sense when any individual with a T2 frigate can dispute it with costs grossly disproportionate to what is invested in by the defender.
Alp Khan GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 303	Posted - 2015.03.13 04:19:29 - [1876] - Quote Veskrashen wrote: Kristian Hackett wrote: That's assuming they even allow the T2 module to be fit to an interceptor. My proposal is the T2 is on BC-class and larger ships, T1 on everything and has serious penalties to prop mods. Get away from this "trollceptor pwn all" chatter entirely. Any "solution" that relies on restricting mods to certain hull sizes, or disallows T2 links on certain ships, or artificially reduces speed will invalidate several current and future fleet comps. No. On the contrary, it will prevent trolls such as yourself who doesn't want to commit and take risks for attacking sovereign null-sec from doing so without taking risks and showing commitment, which is much more balanced. Besides, I don't think anybody is designing this game with your specific fleet compositions in mind. This is most certainly the worst 'feed it to me with a silver spoon' type of entitlement I have ever seen over my time at EVE. Who cares if your current and future fleet compositions are suitable for disputing sovereignty?
Alavaria Fera GoonWaffe 6622	Posted - 2015.03.13 04:19:46 - [1877] - Quote It doesn't matter just like the "oh it's not a problem" people (who are fantasizing about ending our 0.0 dream), it's obvious that fozzie has decided that it's perfectly fine (and is probably also fantasizing about our 0.0 dream being ended) so there's no point to discussing. All it took was fozzie to reinforce fozzie's belief that everything is A-OK and therefore ready for primetime. ^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears. Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 15479	Posted - 2015.03.13 04:31:09 - [1878] - Quote Kenneth Feld wrote: baltec1 wrote: Arthur Aihaken wrote: Why not make the Entosis link like polarized weapons? Simply equipping it drops all your resistances to 0. Makes defending way too easy in every situation where the attackers decide to fight. If you own the grid, what difference does it make what your resists are. It would prevent ninja efforts more than anything, also trollceptor wrecks would litter the grid It would mean anything that fires up it sovlaser would instantly die in a fight while the likes of the trollceper would not be impacted as it avoids fights. You would push everyone even more towards capturing sov using ships built for avoiding fights. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
Alp Khan GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 303	Posted - 2015.03.13 04:41:31 - [1879] - Quote PotatoOverdose wrote: Lena Lazair wrote: Wait wait wait... you mean every single day goons will voluntarily fly predictably fit inty's into my space during my prime time play hours? I don't have to go on a 60j roam looking for them? I don't have to camp a gate for 4 days waiting for someone to wander by? I can just sit in my home system in my favorite anti-trollceptor setup of the day and they will continuously bring me PvP and KMs on a regular basis? Holy crap, please sign me up for this morale-draining experience. Best argument for this system, really. Any interceptor that cannot warp away with its link active, that compromises its speed (via targetting range rigs instead of speed and agility rigs), and that neuters it's midslots (due to sebos) to get 110km+ lock range is simply a killmail. I like killmails. Honestly, once people get tired of loosing so-called "trollceptors," I'd bet some interesting fights will start to happen in an around the sov structures and nodes spread across all of sov nullsec. Mind you, the proposed system isn't perfect. The 4 hour time window doesn't sit well with me, but that's a topic for another thread, I guess... That argument is invalid and your point is moot. A trollceptor really doesn't need any targeting rigs, it can keep the agility/speed rigs. It can simply stay within it's innate targeting range envelope while running the entosis link, and if anything that poses a real threat appears on grid, he can start to burn away from the structure at max speed. This way, trollceptor either ends up getting the defenders chase him, but not really able to catch him until a time that he can activate his warp drive again, or if the defenders don't chase him, the grid breaks. Either option makes it so that the trollceptor will remain perfectly safe.
Carniflex StarHunt Mordus Angels 335	Posted - 2015.03.13 05:03:14 - [1880] - Quote Alp Khan wrote: PotatoOverdose wrote: Lena Lazair wrote: Wait wait wait... you mean every single day goons will voluntarily fly predictably fit inty's into my space during my prime time play hours? I don't have to go on a 60j roam looking for them? I don't have to camp a gate for 4 days waiting for someone to wander by? I can just sit in my home system in my favorite anti-trollceptor setup of the day and they will continuously bring me PvP and KMs on a regular basis? Holy crap, please sign me up for this morale-draining experience. Best argument for this system, really. Any interceptor that cannot warp away with its link active, that compromises its speed (via targetting range rigs instead of speed and agility rigs), and that neuters it's midslots (due to sebos) to get 110km+ lock range is simply a killmail. I like killmails. Honestly, once people get tired of loosing so-called "trollceptors," I'd bet some interesting fights will start to happen in an around the sov structures and nodes spread across all of sov nullsec. Mind you, the proposed system isn't perfect. The 4 hour time window doesn't sit well with me, but that's a topic for another thread, I guess... That argument is invalid and your point is moot. A trollceptor really doesn't need any targeting rigs, it can keep the agility/speed rigs. It can simply stay within it's innate targeting range envelope while running the entosis link, and if anything that poses a real threat appears on grid, he can start to burn away from the structure at max speed. This way, trollceptor either ends up getting the defenders chase him, but not really able to catch him until a time that he can activate his warp drive again, or if the defenders don't chase him, the grid breaks. Either option makes it so that the trollceptor will remain perfectly safe. If it sits/orbits at 30.. 50 km from the structure it quite likely would not make it out of the range fast enough to avoid getting alphaed with it's low transversal if it just flies away straight line - if it uses manual piloting to maintain reasonable tranversal on the other hand it pulls range even slower and defender has more opportunities to try to shoot it down before it gets out of range or MJD/warp after it etc. Here, sanity... niiiice sanity, come to daddy... okay, that's a good sanity... THWONK! GOT the bastard.

Specia1 K State War Academy Caldari State 20	Posted - 2015.03.13 05:08:32 - [1881] - Quote The keres will be more important to this new sov mechanic than the ceptor, imho. Cheap, fast, nearly impossible to probe down. Target at 130km with a single sebo, and damp from 68+km with a falloff of 90km. Shield tanked with MASB or armor buff. Add disruptor II at over 50k with heat; it is the ideal defence ship for any kitey attackers.
Carniflex StarHunt Mordus Angels 335	Posted - 2015.03.13 05:19:05 - [1882] - Quote A little more on Veskrashen's idea of having two versions of the module (1) - Short Range, Short Cycle (2) - Long Range, Long Cycle It was already mentioned that such thing would make it harder to maintain sniping fleets that rely on on-grid warps to keep range and avoid bombers. However, I would argue that keeping the long range short cycle (current T2 proposal) version would not help a lot in this regard as the fight still happens around a static structure and having the link active already forces a significant doctrine change by preventing remote reps. Another note in against the current plan is that cost is not an balancing factor. Under the current plan why would T1 version need to exist if T2 is better in every sense? Because of 60 mil price difference? That really is not an issue and we have already seen how well costs works for balance on Titans and Supercarriers ;) I.e., it does not. So instead of going with currently planned T1 < T2 for the module I believe the Veskrashen's idea to be better implemented as either two similar tier versions of the module or even as a single module with two modes of operation - for example - Using some kind of fuel for reduced cycle and range mode and no fuel for long range, long cycle mode (or vice versa if that is preferable). The system is already present in-game in the form of anc. reppers / shield boosters. Here, sanity... niiiice sanity, come to daddy... okay, that's a good sanity... THWONK! GOT the bastard.
Drogo Drogos KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 15	Posted - 2015.03.13 08:15:20 - [1883] - Quote Lena Lazair wrote: baltec1 wrote: They aren't there to take space, their job is to harass the enemy into defending their sov every day while not engaging them in any fights. If they do take space then that's just an added bonus. The entire point of them is to sap the moral of the defenders over the span of months. Wait wait wait... you mean every single day goons will voluntarily fly predictably fit inty's into my space during my prime time play hours? I don't have to go on a 60j roam looking for them? I don't have to camp a gate for 4 days waiting for someone to wander by? I can just sit in my home system in my favorite anti-trollceptor setup of the day and they will continuously bring me PvP and KMs on a regular basis? Holy crap, please sign me up for this morale-draining experience. Seems you havent met European Goonion / Space Violance / ******** Sqaud / Top Goon or Reavers who dont excist. Have fun when these guys target a part of space with the new changes o/
afkalt Republic Military School Minmatar Republic 928	Posted - 2015.03.13 10:01:32 - [1884] - Quote Alp Khan wrote: That argument is invalid and your point is moot. A trollceptor really doesn't need any targeting rigs, it can keep the agility/speed rigs. It can simply stay within it's innate targeting range envelope while running the entosis link, and if anything that poses a real threat appears on grid, he can start to burn away from the structure at max speed. This way, trollceptor either ends up getting the defenders chase him, but not really able to catch him until a time that he can activate his warp drive again, or if the defenders don't chase him, the grid breaks. Either option makes it so that the trollceptor will remain perfectly safe. Let me get this right . From this thread they're broken because: They'll be moving too fast to be caught They'll be sitting still They'll be too far away at 100+km They'll be in normal lock range They'll be targeting range fit They'll be pure speed fit They'll kill the defender They'll not fight the defender They'll burn off as soon as something is on dscan They'll burn off as soon as they land on grid It'll troll you alone It'll have a full support fleet behind it. It'll contest sov It's not there to contest sov .... .... It's very hard to keep track, can you guys make your minds up about which form the boogieceptor is going to take, please?
Speedkermit Damo Demonic Retribution The Initiative. 416	Posted - 2015.03.13 10:10:56 - [1885] - Quote Falin Whalen wrote: Lena Lazair wrote: baltec1 wrote: They aren't there to take space, their job is to harass the enemy into defending their sov every day while not engaging them in any fights. If they do take space then that's just an added bonus. The entire point of them is to sap the moral of the defenders over the span of months. Wait wait wait... you mean every single day goons will voluntarily fly predictably fit inty's into my space during my prime time play hours? I don't have to go on a 60j roam looking for them? I don't have to camp a gate for 4 days waiting for someone to wander by? I can just sit in my home system in my favorite anti-trollceptor setup of the day and they will continuously bring me PvP and KMs on a regular basis? Holy crap, please sign me up for this morale-draining experience. I like how you think we will be going to your home system. Youre so cute. No we will be running around where you are not and you have to play wack-a-mole till you get fed up not catching any of us, and having to go on CTA button orbiting ops every day after till the servers go dark, or you quit and go to highsec. I think you will quit before we do. For you. I think some of your meatshield alliances are not going to handle CTA button orbiting ops nearly as well as Goonswarm probably will. Time will tell. Protect me from knowing what I don't need to know. Protect me from even knowing that there are things to know that I don't know. Protect me from knowing that I decided not to know about the things that I decided not to know about. Amen.
Dave Stark 7448	Posted - 2015.03.13 10:32:19 - [1886] - Quote Aralyn Cormallen wrote: Dave Stark wrote: well if you haven't been forced off it, the only option left is that you are indeed holding the grid. Except you haven't forced the close-range doctrine off it either, so they are holding the grid just as much as you are, but for some reason that seems to be acceptable to people, snipers should be allowed to be declared victors of a stalemate. Fozzie has expressly stated he doesn't want doctrines determined by these mechanics. But while a sniper fleet is allowed to kite and snipe whilst running an e-link, and a brawler fleet cannot do so (as they will just get their e-links shot up while the kiters keep them safe and snug out of range), it pushes fleets to be required to be sniper doctrines, or you are just setting yourself for frustration and faliure. of course they are, that's when a fight happens. if you're both holding a grid, you shoot each other, and the one left standing is the one that held the grid. there's nothing that i've seen that stops you warping a brawling fleet directly on top of a sniping fleet and anihilating them?
Jean-Baptiste Zorginho University of Caille Gallente Federation 3	Posted - 2015.03.13 10:36:36 - [1887] - Quote Schluffi Schluffelsen wrote: 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). I really like the idea, just not sure whether CCP is able to apply the same stacking penalty to the Entosis Links as they can on modules. I would agree that it's better to have a well balanced Entosis module and mechanic than restricting it on hulls. Remove range, encourage team play, don't encourage more n+1.
knobber Jobbler Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 528	Posted - 2015.03.13 10:47:17 - [1888] - Quote Lena Lazair wrote: baltec1 wrote: They aren't there to take space, their job is to harass the enemy into defending their sov every day while not engaging them in any fights. If they do take space then that's just an added bonus. The entire point of them is to sap the moral of the defenders over the span of months. Wait wait wait... you mean every single day goons will voluntarily fly predictably fit inty's into my space during my prime time play hours? I don't have to go on a 60j roam looking for them? I don't have to camp a gate for 4 days waiting for someone to wander by? I can just sit in my home system in my favorite anti-trollceptor setup of the day and they will continuously bring me PvP and KMs on a regular basis? Holy crap, please sign me up for this morale-draining experience. If fun and engaging PvP for you is chasing a single ship round a constellation then I guess there is no hope.
Dras Malar Cloak and Daggers Fidelas Constans 9	Posted - 2015.03.13 11:09:00 - [1889] - Quote I'd like to rephrase my argument. I would like to do away with the sovlaser and instead keep structures, but simplify a lot of the unnecessary convoluted timers and all the things you need a flowchart to understand in Dominion. Bash a thing, get a timer, come back in 2 days to blow it up and take the system. The industry index sounds like a good idea, and a way to use it for occupancy concerns with structures is to increase the resistances on the ihub or whatever structure you have to bash to take the system, so it takes more of a military presence on the field in terms of DPS like dreadnoughts to take a very well-used system. I think the Entosis Link doesn't prioritize what we want, which is a risk/reward commitment, as much as structure bashing does. Sure a new group that isn't experienced enough to have invested in capital ships will be at a disadvantage when trying to take space, but that's true anyways. If we use a module and don't incentivize damage output to take sovereignty then we can end up with some annoying Trollcepter type situation even without Entosis-equipped interceptors, like with fast cruisers or whatever jumping out of wormholes, sneaking around and burning everyone out while we play wack-a-mole defense without the attacker having to actually commit militarily. I think that whole playstyle is counter to what nullsec should be about. I also think we should wait on the sov update, whatever it turns out to be, at least a few more months to have this discussion over something this important and in the meantime improve nullsec to prepare us for actually using our space in the ways we're otherwise going to be punished for with an industry index.
FT Diomedes The Graduates Forged of Fire 874	Posted - 2015.03.13 11:41:13 - [1890] - Quote Dras Malar wrote: I think the Entosis Link doesn't prioritize what we want, which is a risk/reward commitment, as much as structure bashing does. Sure a new group that isn't experienced enough to have invested in capital ships will be at a disadvantage when trying to take space, but that's true anyways. If we use a module and don't incentivize damage output to take sovereignty then we can end up with some annoying Trollcepter type situation even without Entosis-equipped interceptors, like with fast cruisers or whatever jumping out of wormholes, sneaking around and burning everyone out while we play wack-a-mole defense without the attacker having to actually commit militarily. I think that whole playstyle is counter to what nullsec should be about. This is the problem with the Entosis module in a nutshell. It does not require a real commitment from the aggressor, but the defender must respond. The Greatest Ship Ever. Credit to Shahfluffers.

rsantos Mosquito Squadron Mordus Angels 41	Posted - 2015.03.13 13:06:46 - [1891] - Quote FT Diomedes wrote: Dras Malar wrote: I think the Entosis Link doesn't prioritize what we want, which is a risk/reward commitment, as much as structure bashing does. Sure a new group that isn't experienced enough to have invested in capital ships will be at a disadvantage when trying to take space, but that's true anyways. If we use a module and don't incentivize damage output to take sovereignty then we can end up with some annoying Trollcepter type situation even without Entosis-equipped interceptors, like with fast cruisers or whatever jumping out of wormholes, sneaking around and burning everyone out while we play wack-a-mole defense without the attacker having to actually commit militarily. I think that whole playstyle is counter to what nullsec should be about. This is the problem with the Entosis module in a nutshell. It does not require a real commitment from the aggressor, but the defender must respond. If I drop SBUs now on your system you better go shot them. What I've I committed? A few sbus?!
Borachon GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 46	Posted - 2015.03.13 13:20:52 - [1892] - Quote rsantos wrote: If I drop SBUs now on your system you better go shot them. What I've I committed? A few sbus?! I have a hard time believing you don't actually see the difference between a 250m ISK structure anchored in place with three hours warning before a structure is at risk and a 100m ISK ship going 4000 m/s with 2 minutes warning before a structure is at risk.
knobber Jobbler Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 529	Posted - 2015.03.13 13:23:53 - [1893] - Quote Borachon wrote: rsantos wrote: If I drop SBUs now on your system you better go shot them. What I've I committed? A few sbus?! I have a hard time believing you don't actually see the difference between a 250m ISK structure anchored in place with three hours warning before a structure is at risk and a 100m ISK ship going 4000 m/s with 2 minutes warning before a structure is at risk. Like many of the posters in this thread, they're just armchair commentators, having never stepped into sov. This is why they can't grasp how daft the current concept is as it stands.
Dave Stark 7448	Posted - 2015.03.13 13:28:34 - [1894] - Quote knobber Jobbler wrote: Borachon wrote: rsantos wrote: If I drop SBUs now on your system you better go shot them. What I've I committed? A few sbus?! I have a hard time believing you don't actually see the difference between a 250m ISK structure anchored in place with three hours warning before a structure is at risk and a 100m ISK ship going 4000 m/s with 2 minutes warning before a structure is at risk. Like many of the posters in this thread, they're just armchair commentators, having never stepped into sov. This is why they can't grasp how daft the current concept is as it stands. lies! the new system is wonderful, and will be the downfall of goons! it should be added to eve tomorrow!
V1P3RR Goonswarm Federation 15	Posted - 2015.03.13 13:31:18 - [1895] - Quote rsantos wrote: If I drop SBUs now on your system you better go shot them. What I've I committed? A few sbus?! ^ shows how much MoA knows about the sov system :)
Aralyn Cormallen Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation 878	Posted - 2015.03.13 13:35:55 - [1896] - Quote Milton Middleson wrote: Because a) while you're parking your sniper fleet on the sov button, you're exposing yourself in a huge way, and b) it means you can't effectively contest the button with sniper comps unless you have already cleared the field Good. No other fleet comp can contest the button until they have already cleared the field without exposing themselves in a huge way. Why should snipers be different? Quote: so unless the fight is over quite quickly, you may lose even though your opponent never actually achieved grid supremacy. How? The fleet the snipers are fighting cannot capture the objective since as soon as they activate an e-link, the snipers can instantly kill them (since they cannot recieve remote repair, anyone taking dps with an active e-link is going to die). Quote: I certainly don't mind disadvantaging kiting/sniper fleets in some manner, since there must be a meaningful tradeoff for getting away with lesser commitment, but that seems rather harsh. Its not about disadvantaging snipers, its about making them play by the same rules as brawlers. If they want to capture the grid they have to clear it, or put themselves at significant risk by disabling their means of defence (in the brawlers that is their tank, in snipers it is their speed and manoeverability)
Carniflex StarHunt Mordus Angels 336	Posted - 2015.03.13 13:46:37 - [1897] - Quote rsantos wrote: FT Diomedes wrote: Dras Malar wrote: I think the Entosis Link doesn't prioritize what we want, which is a risk/reward commitment, as much as structure bashing does. Sure a new group that isn't experienced enough to have invested in capital ships will be at a disadvantage when trying to take space, but that's true anyways. If we use a module and don't incentivize damage output to take sovereignty then we can end up with some annoying Trollcepter type situation even without Entosis-equipped interceptors, like with fast cruisers or whatever jumping out of wormholes, sneaking around and burning everyone out while we play wack-a-mole defense without the attacker having to actually commit militarily. I think that whole playstyle is counter to what nullsec should be about. This is the problem with the Entosis module in a nutshell. It does not require a real commitment from the aggressor, but the defender must respond. If I drop SBUs now on your system you better go shot them. What I've I committed? A few sbus?! If only that would be so simple ;) In case you have missed currently vast majority of systems have defensive SBU's installed. Combine that with the HP wall and supercapital hammer and you have gasp the current situation. Here, sanity... niiiice sanity, come to daddy... okay, that's a good sanity... THWONK! GOT the bastard.
FT Diomedes The Graduates Forged of Fire 878	Posted - 2015.03.13 14:24:05 - [1898] - Quote rsantos wrote: FT Diomedes wrote: Dras Malar wrote: I think the Entosis Link doesn't prioritize what we want, which is a risk/reward commitment, as much as structure bashing does. Sure a new group that isn't experienced enough to have invested in capital ships will be at a disadvantage when trying to take space, but that's true anyways. If we use a module and don't incentivize damage output to take sovereignty then we can end up with some annoying Trollcepter type situation even without Entosis-equipped interceptors, like with fast cruisers or whatever jumping out of wormholes, sneaking around and burning everyone out while we play wack-a-mole defense without the attacker having to actually commit militarily. I think that whole playstyle is counter to what nullsec should be about. This is the problem with the Entosis module in a nutshell. It does not require a real commitment from the aggressor, but the defender must respond. If I drop SBUs now on your system you better go shot them. What I've I committed? A few sbus?! See, RSantos, I liked having you out in Fountain because you were really quite good at the small gang, skirmish fighting we get from EH. Your whole style of fighting revolves around not committing to a fight. You are good at the skirmish tactics of drawing out overly aggressive tacklers, killing them, and using your tactical mobility to win a fight. As soon as a proper fleet composition shows up, you use your operational mobility to run away or bounce safes and log off. Elite PVP at its finest. So, given that, of course you like a way of forcing defenders to engage you on your terms. You, and nearly everyone else supporting Trollsov, like it for that reason. But since you lived in space that was never at risk at all, I'm going to take your opinions on holding sovereignty with a grain of salt. Next time you are roaming through Deklein, find a system and drop some SBU's. Contrary to what some claim, not every system has 180m ISK killmails sitting on the gate. The Greatest Ship Ever. Credit to Shahfluffers.
SilentAsTheGrave Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective 117	Posted - 2015.03.13 16:16:15 - [1899] - Quote CCP Fozzie wrote: xttz wrote: CCP Fozzie wrote: The current plan is indeed to have the notifications instantaneously sent to all alliance members. Is this sent the second the module is activated, or when the capture timer kicks in? We're currently leaning towards notifying when the capture impact begins, so while the module is in the warmup cycle it would not send a notification. That's open to change as we go forward though. What exact details is going to be in the notification?
Borachon GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 52	Posted - 2015.03.13 16:16:30 - [1900] - Quote Carniflex wrote: In case you have missed currently vast majority of systems have defensive SBU's installed. Combine that with the HP wall and supercapital hammer and you have gasp the current situation. Oh, no one is defending the current system from what I can tell. SBUs have something like 40m EHP, so it takes a long time for even a 20-man gang for either an attacker to drop a defensive SBU or an defender to drop an offensive SBU. In contrast, in Fozziesov, a small gang can make a significant impact on your sov if you don't contest it. Thats a very good things. The main concerns I have are that: The T1 link as currently proposed doesn't support kiting or sniping doctrines of either medium or long range. BRAVE Eagles, CFC Harpies, and CFC/BL tengus are an example of this. The T2 link as currently proposed lets mobility-oriented ships balanced around short/mid-range play (e.g. t3 destroyers) impact sov well beyond a range where they have any actual effect on control of the grid That's why suggested upping the T1 link to 50km (support kiting frigate doctrines like CFC Harpyfleet) and making the T2 link have the full set of hictor bubble penalties when active. To remind everyone, this is a mass reduction and AB/MWD velocity bonus reduction. Modern sniper doctrines (e.g. modern BRAVE/NULLI AB Eagle and CFC/BL AB Tengus) wouldn't be significantly effected by this - the mass reduction offsets much of the AB velocity bonus reduction for non-oversized ABs and this could be appropriately tuned. Likewise, t3 sniper BCs, sniper BSes, and sniper maruaders fit MJDs for mobility, and this actually helps them by increasing their agility. Short range doctrines built around mobility, on the other hand, either can only impact sov at ranges where they actually impact enemies, or are significantly penalized. It's also, as Fozzie asked for, an effect that's already in game and that players, particularly nullsec and lowsec players, understand.

Aivlis Eldelbar Ubuntu Inc. The Fourth District 57	Posted - 2015.03.13 16:20:31 - [1901] - Quote CCP Fozzie wrote: There's a balance to be found between the two extremes. I think we'd be losing something significant if border control was strong enough to allow people to ignore their interiors. Having some ships move through gatecamps more easily and others less easily is a pretty helpful tool in getting that balance. A bit offtopic, but since this change already nerfs supercapital ships, and by extension also reduces the usefulness of Heavy Interdictors (lack of prey driving predator population down), can we hope that you might entertain the notion of giving HICS a script that gives that a very small anti-nullified ship bubble? Or is this too convoluted and doesn't fit your idea of simple mechanics? Or too overpowered even if the bubble would be too small for a lone ship to camp anything? To be honest I just kinda want to see a blockade like in the Guradians of the Galaxy movie, with HICs forming a wall around a gate, staying in close formation to prevent interceptors or T3 from warping in through the gaps.
Falin Whalen GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 768	Posted - 2015.03.13 16:20:40 - [1902] - Quote Dave Stark wrote: knobber Jobbler wrote: Borachon wrote: rsantos wrote: If I drop SBUs now on your system you better go shot them. What I've I committed? A few sbus?! I have a hard time believing you don't actually see the difference between a 250m ISK structure anchored in place with three hours warning before a structure is at risk and a 100m ISK ship going 4000 m/s with 2 minutes warning before a structure is at risk. Like many of the posters in this thread, they're just armchair commentators, having never stepped into sov. This is why they can't grasp how daft the current concept is as it stands. lies! the new system is wonderful, and will be the downfall of goons! it should be added to eve tomorrow! http://www.gifsforum.com/images/gif/not%20sure%20if%20serious/grand/87582072.gif "it's only because of their stupidity that they're able to be so sure of themselves." The Trial - Franz Kafka-á
Dave Stark 7449	Posted - 2015.03.13 16:23:54 - [1903] - Quote Falin Whalen wrote: http://www.gifsforum.com/images/gif/not%20sure%20if%20serious/grand/87582072.gif :)
Kristian Hackett Alpha Republic - Transcenders of Space and Time Solyaris Chtonium 49	Posted - 2015.03.13 16:26:31 - [1904] - Quote All of the current discussion from the past 5 pages is why I feel that Cruiser-class ships and below should only be able to fit the short range, long time T1 module. The long range, short time T2 should only be available to BC-class ships and above. No trollceptor issues, no T3s running about being a thorn in everybody's backsides, and it will encourage a lot of variations in fleet sizes and tactics. Aircraft Maintenance - Using a high school diploma to fix what a college degree just f**ed up. "Life is too short to drink cheap beer."*
Borachon GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 53	Posted - 2015.03.13 17:01:01 - [1905] - Quote Kristian Hackett wrote: All of the current discussion from the past 5 pages is why I feel that Cruiser-class ships and below should only be able to fit the short range, long time T1 module. The long range, short time T2 should only be available to BC-class ships and above. No trollceptor issues, no T3s running about being a thorn in everybody's backsides, and it will encourage a lot of variations in fleet sizes and tactics. The problem is that there are, as others have pointed out, many legitimate frigate and cruiser fleet compositions for which the T1 link doesn't let them reflect that they are contesting the grid. BRAVE Eagles, BL/CFC Tengus, and CFC Harpies all fall in this category. Fleet AB Harpies (with an engagement envelope of 70km) are very different from fleet AB Eagles (with an engagement envelope of 150km), on the other hand, so they probably can't be dealt with the same.
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 15490	Posted - 2015.03.13 17:36:30 - [1906] - Quote Kristian Hackett wrote: All of the current discussion from the past 5 pages is why I feel that Cruiser-class ships and below should only be able to fit the short range, long time T1 module. The long range, short time T2 should only be available to BC-class ships and above. No trollceptor issues, no T3s running about being a thorn in everybody's backsides, and it will encourage a lot of variations in fleet sizes and tactics. Cruisers as far as I can see would be fine under the current iteration of fozziesov. The issue is only with very fast frigate and destroyer hulls that are built to evade rather than fight. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
Eli Apol Definitely a nullsec alt 374	Posted - 2015.03.13 17:41:09 - [1907] - Quote Kristian Hackett wrote: All of the current discussion from the past 5 pages ...ignores the previous 70 where small hulls were basically argued to death as being a non-issue for suitably prepared defenders. but what would I know, I'm just a salvager
FT Diomedes The Graduates Forged of Fire 881	Posted - 2015.03.13 17:42:03 - [1908] - Quote Maybe instead of multiple versions of the module, it just needs some scripts. Long range, short range, with corresponding advantages and disadvantages to cycle time, etc. The Greatest Ship Ever. Credit to Shahfluffers.
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 15490	Posted - 2015.03.13 17:50:12 - [1909] - Quote FT Diomedes wrote: Maybe instead of multiple versions of the module, it just needs some scripts. Long range, short range, with corresponding advantages and disadvantages to cycle time, etc. I like the idea of upping the t1 to 50km and blocking the use of the t2 mod from frigates and destroyers. Its the least complicated answer to the problems. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
Alavaria Fera GoonWaffe 6644	Posted - 2015.03.13 18:00:20 - [1910] - Quote Borachon wrote: Kristian Hackett wrote: All of the current discussion from the past 5 pages is why I feel that Cruiser-class ships and below should only be able to fit the short range, long time T1 module. The long range, short time T2 should only be available to BC-class ships and above. No trollceptor issues, no T3s running about being a thorn in everybody's backsides, and it will encourage a lot of variations in fleet sizes and tactics. The problem is that there are, as others have pointed out, many legitimate frigate and cruiser fleet compositions for which the T1 link doesn't let them reflect that they are contesting the grid. BRAVE Eagles, BL/CFC Tengus, and CFC Harpies all fall in this category. Fleet AB Harpies (with an engagement envelope of 70km) are very different from fleet AB Eagles (with an engagement envelope of 150km), on the other hand, so they probably can't be dealt with the same. Ironically, I would imagine this might take on a specialist role where you might have the "long-range sov laser interceptor" types whose job is to apply sov laser and run around, while the actual fleet fights the enemy. ^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears. Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.

Jessy Andersteen AdAstra. Beach Club 13	Posted - 2015.03.13 18:01:36 - [1911] - Quote There is no issue with the Link and the ceptor: If a defender ally couln't bring a Maulus,a Griffin, an hyena, a keres, a razu, a lachesis, a rapier or an huggin on the grid means only one thing: sovereignty must be lose. Trollceptor is a myth: farmers in null sec only want a nerf about the interceptor: they want to be safe with their farm ship in anoms, that's all.
Alavaria Fera GoonWaffe 6644	Posted - 2015.03.13 18:14:48 - [1912] - Quote Jessy Andersteen wrote: There is no issue with the Link and the ceptor: If a defender ally couln't bring a Maulus,a Griffin, an hyena, a keres, a razu, a lachesis, a rapier or an huggin on the grid means only one thing: sovereignty must be lose. Trollceptor is a myth: farmers in null sec only want a nerf about the interceptor: they want to be safe with their farm ship in anoms, that's all. yes yes of course. our tears, massdeath will end us, blah blah blah better go buy your interceptors and fits now rather than after everyone else has driven up the price. wouldn't want to be overpaying to end our 0.0 nightmare ^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears. Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
Jori McKie TURN LEFT The Camel Empire 219	Posted - 2015.03.13 18:15:03 - [1913] - Quote Current stats and mechanics as confirmed by Fozzie are T1 Link 25km range 5min warm up cycle time T2 Link 250km range 2min warm up cycle time Mechanics: Start a warm up cycle - No warp, no cloak, no cyno, AB/MWD and MJD possible, Bastion and Triage/Siege possible - Losing lock (via off grid, damp or ECM) means you have to wait out the rest of the cycle (while can't warp) without any further progress even if you relock, no progress is saved. After that you have to restart with no progress saved. Suggestion - Notify the sov holder immediately when the "warm up" phase starts. Swap the cycle time on the links as first step T1 Link 25km range 2min warm up cycle time T2 Link 250km range 5min warm up cycle time In case that is still not enough add 2-5min "warm up" timer for both. Or tie the timer to the system index, the higher the index the longer the timer. T1 with 25km range = 4-7min warm up cycle time T2 with 250km range = 7-10min warm up cycle time Any troll attempt with this stats will be a pain in the ass, even if the Defender can't kill the Ceptor any sort of damp, ECM will cost the trolling party so much wasted time i doubt it will be fun. It should be enough reaction time to any troll attempt even on your outer constellation systems. "It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." --áAbrazzar
Primary This Rifter 4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation 732	Posted - 2015.03.13 18:36:15 - [1914] - Quote Eli Apol wrote: Kristian Hackett wrote: All of the current discussion from the past 5 pages ...ignores the previous 70 where small hulls were basically argued to death as being a non-issue for suitably prepared defenders. Except they're not. Reminder: CCP thinks you have no right to your alliance logos.
Eli Apol Definitely a nullsec alt 376	Posted - 2015.03.13 18:40:13 - [1915] - Quote Primary This Rifter wrote: Eli Apol wrote: Kristian Hackett wrote: All of the current discussion from the past 5 pages ...ignores the previous 70 where small hulls were basically argued to death as being a non-issue for suitably prepared defenders. Except they're not. Still waiting to hear how they outrun a 10mn tactical destroyer whilst their entosis cycle ends. So yeah, they are. but what would I know, I'm just a salvager
Alavaria Fera GoonWaffe 6645	Posted - 2015.03.13 18:41:03 - [1916] - Quote Primary This Rifter wrote: Eli Apol wrote: Kristian Hackett wrote: All of the current discussion from the past 5 pages ...ignores the previous 70 where small hulls were basically argued to death as being a non-issue for suitably prepared defenders. Except they're not. Yes let's just claim that the problem is totally solved. Anyway fozzie basically posted "oh yeah it's fine" so it doesn't matter they're already convinced. Aren't you proud? Your F&I thread strategy has helped cement the methods (sov lasers & interceptors) that will allow you to -finally- end our 0.0 dream. You should be proud, your posting op was a great success in achieving the strategic objective. ^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears. Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
Yroc Jannseen Enlightened Industries Goonswarm Federation 73	Posted - 2015.03.13 19:17:00 - [1917] - Quote Eli Apol wrote: Primary This Rifter wrote: Eli Apol wrote: Kristian Hackett wrote: All of the current discussion from the past 5 pages ...ignores the previous 70 where small hulls were basically argued to death as being a non-issue for suitably prepared defenders. Except they're not. Still waiting to hear how they outrun a 10mn tactical destroyer whilst their entosis cycle ends. So yeah, they are. Well the reality is, in Eve it usually doesn't matter if there is a paper counter to a mechanic that is being abused and makes people's lives miserable. A lot of people will argue there were counters to drone assist.
Alavaria Fera GoonWaffe 6645	Posted - 2015.03.13 19:21:56 - [1918] - Quote Yroc Jannseen wrote: Eli Apol wrote: Primary This Rifter wrote: Eli Apol wrote: Kristian Hackett wrote: All of the current discussion from the past 5 pages ...ignores the previous 70 where small hulls were basically argued to death as being a non-issue for suitably prepared defenders. Except they're not. Still waiting to hear how they outrun a 10mn tactical destroyer whilst their entosis cycle ends. So yeah, they are. Well the reality is, in Eve it usually doesn't matter if there is a paper counter to a mechanic that is being abused and makes people's lives miserable. A lot of people will argue there were counters to drone assist. Basically, it's up to use to actually do it. And like always people will be like "oooh please dooooooo" and then later on it's like "ugggh this sucks, someone (ie: ccp) stop themmmm" ^^ 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 6645	Posted - 2015.03.13 20:08:20 - [1919] - Quote Note that if, say, a coalition that exists just to destroy us abuses trolling sov to end us, it will be a magnificant op success. Like a natural-20 sort of op success. ^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears. Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
Alp Khan GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 309	Posted - 2015.03.13 21:03:32 - [1920] - Quote Kristian Hackett wrote: All of the current discussion from the past 5 pages is why I feel that Cruiser-class ships and below should only be able to fit the short range, long time T1 module. The long range, short time T2 should only be available to BC-class ships and above. No trollceptor issues, no T3s running about being a thorn in everybody's backsides, and it will encourage a lot of variations in fleet sizes and tactics. No, an agility/speed interceptor with even a T1 module is going to be a problem, because the fact is with every possible situation, if the trollceptor feels that he is going to be at ANY sort of risk, EVEN WITH THE WARP RESTRICTION, they can just burn away with prop mod, away from the structure, outrunning from the defenders at 4500m/s without links, or implants or even without T2 rigs. Trollceptor will end up breaking the grid by pulling distance insanely fast anyway, so essentially, this cheap ship will be a NO RISK NO COMMITMENT means of contesting sovereignty. And no, before any no-commitment type trolls try to lie and deceive anyone, you can't realistically probe down a frigate running at 4000m/s+ speeds, by the time the prober lands on the probed down position, trollceptor is already 100k away! You can't catch a trollceptor on gates either, since the trollceptor manages to reach <2 second align time (insta warp) with his speed/agility fit. And bubbles, they don't stop interceptors. This means NO COMMITMENT WHEN FLYING THROUGH GATES, BUBBLE IMMUNITY, NO COMMITMENT WHILE ON GRID WITH EVEN T1 ENTOSIS MODULE ACTIVE ON A SOV STRUCTURE! AT NO TIME THE TROLLCEPTOR PUTS ITSELF (AN ALREADY CHEAP FRIGATE) AT RISK WHILE SUCCESSFULLY CONTESTING SOVEREIGNTY.

Gevlon Goblin Science and Trade Institute Caldari State 373	Posted - 2015.03.13 21:33:52 - [1921] - Quote Alp Khan wrote: And no, before any no-commitment type trolls try to lie and deceive anyone, you can't realistically probe down a frigate running at 4000m/s+ speeds, by the time the prober lands on the probed down position, trollceptor is already 100k away! Actually you can, just ask anyone in Miniluv. The task isn't essentially different from landing at zero on a moving miner. Yes, I know, miners are slower, but small blasters also have smaller optimal than Hyena webs. You need a scout who is in line with the 1-2M km offgrid safe the catcher will come: Catcher --- Scout ---- Troll The scout watches transversal speed. When the trollceptor has low transversal, it flies towards the scout. Flight time from a near perch is about 6-8 secs. So probe, warp to 30, you'll land right on it. Not like it would matter, he just shrugs, grabs another trollceptor and comes again. My blog: greedygoblin.blogspot.com
Alavaria Fera GoonWaffe 6648	Posted - 2015.03.13 21:39:27 - [1922] - Quote Gevlon Goblin wrote: Alp Khan wrote: And no, before any no-commitment type trolls try to lie and deceive anyone, you can't realistically probe down a frigate running at 4000m/s+ speeds, by the time the prober lands on the probed down position, trollceptor is already 100k away! Actually you can, just ask anyone in Miniluv. The task isn't essentially different from landing at zero on a moving miner. Yes, I know, miners are slower, but small blasters also have smaller optimal than Hyena webs. You need a scout who is in line with the 1-2M km offgrid safe the catcher will come: Catcher --- Scout ---- Troll The scout watches transversal speed. When the trollceptor has low transversal, it flies towards the scout. Flight time from a near perch is about 6-8 secs. So probe, warp to 30, you'll land right on it. Not like it would matter, he just shrugs, grabs another trollceptor and comes again. no no no this is the point where you go "oh ho ho I can't wait get get all your interceptor killmails muahahahaha come at my sov bro" ^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears. Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
Primary This Rifter 4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation 732	Posted - 2015.03.14 00:28:45 - [1923] - Quote Well this thread has slowed considerably. Reminder: CCP thinks you have no right to your alliance logos.
SoCal Stoli Rotsuda Lom Corporation SpaceMonkey's Alliance 17	Posted - 2015.03.14 01:32:57 - [1924] - Quote TBH, I'm not getting most of the concern here. As I understand the new system, if you already own sov, the only thing you have to do is to have someone with an Entosis link at your structure at the start of the Vulnerability Period, link up for two uncontested minutes, and - boom! - your structure is safe for another 24 hours. You've "activated" the link to protect the structure. Per Fozzie's original post: "The Entosis Link is used for all kinds of manipulation of these structures. In general, activating an Entosis Link on a structure you own will activate and protect it, while activating an Entosis Link on a structure you do not own will disable, reinforce or capture it." Does the system advertise, somehow, when the Vulnerability Period starts? If not, the owner is at even more of an advantage - you know exactly the moment you need to be there to activate your link and start your two-minute timer, and an aggressor needs to guess, or obtain that info via intel. Even if an aggressor knows when the structure becomes vulnerable, they'll have to keep their link active for anywhere up to 4x longer than the owner - who, presumably, will be trying to interfere with the aggressor's activities, while having their own link active! A single interceptor (or most any other ship) is not going to be successful in that endeavor if faced with even half-hearted opposition. Presumably, an actively-held system will have at least aforementioned half-hearted effort to activate the protection mode.
Mike Azariah The Scope Gallente Federation 2630	Posted - 2015.03.14 03:35:26 - [1925] - Quote Primary This Rifter wrote: Well this thread has slowed considerably. Eventually everybody gets tired of running laps. m Mike Azariah Gö¼GöÇGöÇGö¼n++ ¯\|(pâä)/¯
Arrendis GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 319	Posted - 2015.03.14 03:53:26 - [1926] - Quote Mike Azariah wrote: Primary This Rifter wrote: Well this thread has slowed considerably. Eventually everybody gets tired of running laps. m Just waiting to see if there will be a reply.
Syn Shi School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State 138	Posted - 2015.03.14 05:17:36 - [1927] - Quote SoCal Stoli Rotsuda wrote: TBH, I'm not getting most of the concern here. As I understand the new system, if you already own sov, the only thing you have to do is to have someone with an Entosis link at your structure at the start of the Vulnerability Period, link up for two uncontested minutes, and - boom! - your structure is safe for another 24 hours. You've "activated" the link to protect the structure. Per Fozzie's original post: "The Entosis Link is used for all kinds of manipulation of these structures. In general, activating an Entosis Link on a structure you own will activate and protect it, while activating an Entosis Link on a structure you do not own will disable, reinforce or capture it." Does the system advertise, somehow, when the Vulnerability Period starts? If not, the owner is at even more of an advantage - you know exactly the moment you need to be there to activate your link and start your two-minute timer, and an aggressor needs to guess, or obtain that info via intel. Even if an aggressor knows when the structure becomes vulnerable, they'll have to keep their link active for anywhere up to 4x longer than the owner - who, presumably, will be trying to interfere with the aggressor's activities, while having their own link active! A single interceptor (or most any other ship) is not going to be successful in that endeavor if faced with even half-hearted opposition. Presumably, an actively-held system will have at least the aforementioned half-hearted effort to get their own Entosis link up to activate the protection mode. The new system will do nothing for null. If the big alliances have nothing to go to war over it will end up with them just trolling the hell out of anyone who tries to set up shop. They have been stagnant much too long and have the ships, isk, and the blob to do as they wish. Only boredom and attrition will allow for a change in null.
Alavaria Fera GoonWaffe 6650	Posted - 2015.03.14 05:53:17 - [1928] - Quote Arrendis wrote: Mike Azariah wrote: Primary This Rifter wrote: Well this thread has slowed considerably. Eventually everybody gets tired of running laps. Just waiting to see if there will be a reply. everyone agrees it's perfectly balanced and ready for prime time ^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears. Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
Mike Azariah The Scope Gallente Federation 2631	Posted - 2015.03.14 06:39:29 - [1929] - Quote Alavaria Fera wrote: Arrendis wrote: Mike Azariah wrote: Primary This Rifter wrote: Well this thread has slowed considerably. Eventually everybody gets tired of running laps. Just waiting to see if there will be a reply. everyone agrees it's perfectly balanced and ready for prime time No, but concerns have been voiced and hear. One week to fanfest, months to June m Mike Azariah Gö¼GöÇGöÇGö¼n++ ¯\|(pâä)/¯
SilentAsTheGrave Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective 118	Posted - 2015.03.14 07:49:03 - [1930] - Quote Mike Azariah wrote: Alavaria Fera wrote: Arrendis wrote: Mike Azariah wrote: Primary This Rifter wrote: Well this thread has slowed considerably. Eventually everybody gets tired of running laps. Just waiting to see if there will be a reply. everyone agrees it's perfectly balanced and ready for prime time No, but concerns have been voiced and hear. One week to fanfest, months to June m Can you please poke CCP Fozzie on what details will be in the notifications? Will it be just like the ones now where it lists everything under the sun or something simple like just the system? I don't think that would be too difficult to get a response.

SilentAsTheGrave Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective 118	Posted - 2015.03.14 07:52:10 - [1931] - Quote SoCal Stoli Rotsuda wrote: TBH, I'm not getting most of the concern here. As I understand the new system, if you already own sov, the only thing you have to do is to have someone with an Entosis link at your structure at the start of the Vulnerability Period, link up for two uncontested minutes, and - boom! - your structure is safe for another 24 hours. You've "activated" the link to protect the structure. Per Fozzie's original post: "The Entosis Link is used for all kinds of manipulation of these structures. In general, activating an Entosis Link on a structure you own will activate and protect it, while activating an Entosis Link on a structure you do not own will disable, reinforce or capture it." Does the system advertise, somehow, when the Vulnerability Period starts? If not, the owner is at even more of an advantage - you know exactly the moment you need to be there to activate your link and start your two-minute timer, and an aggressor needs to guess, or obtain that info via intel. Even if an aggressor knows when the structure becomes vulnerable, they'll have to keep their link active for anywhere up to 4x longer than the owner - who, presumably, will be trying to interfere with the aggressor's activities, while having their own link active! A single interceptor (or most any other ship) is not going to be successful in that endeavor if faced with even half-hearted opposition. Presumably, an actively-held system will have at least the aforementioned half-hearted effort to get their own Entosis link up to activate the protection mode. Unless I missed something; doing a daily Entosis Link on your sov system for two minutes will not protect it for the next 24 hours. Fozzie also stated that there will be a notification alliance wide after the warm up period has ended and the cycle begins on the sov thing.
Jessy Andersteen AdAstra. Beach Club 15	Posted - 2015.03.14 11:06:53 - [1932] - Quote Alp Khan wrote: This means NO COMMITMENT WHEN FLYING THROUGH GATES, BUBBLE IMMUNITY, NO COMMITMENT WHILE ON GRID WITH EVEN T1 ENTOSIS MODULE ACTIVE ON A SOV STRUCTURE! AT NO TIME THE TROLLCEPTOR PUTS ITSELF (AN ALREADY CHEAP FRIGATE) AT RISK WHILE SUCCESSFULLY CONTESTING SOVEREIGNTY. If a trollceptor can contest the souv on ur ALLIANCE PRIME TIME, thats means that defender are not able to form up a fleet of ONE MAULUS (or griffin, hyena, keres, razu, rapier) or a frig with the link) on the ALLIANCE PRIME TIME. That's only means one thing: this alliance occupe a too big space for its size. Alliances like goon have too many systems and will lose some. That's really good. Alliances like goons will stop have renters. That's really good: it's give too many easy money for this alliances and it's a big issue. Just assume that losing the targeting range, or the lock break the contestation effect of the link and it's ok. the well defended sov wont be contested easyly by only "trollceptor". If a "trollceptor can do the job" thats means the sov must be taken by another people. Thanks the "prime time" vulnerability interval.
Dras Malar Cloak and Daggers Fidelas Constans 9	Posted - 2015.03.14 13:13:38 - [1933] - Quote As it stands none of us has any idea whether interceptors will be a problem in the big picture or not, because none of us has tried it. This system is going to demand a different defensive dynamic in nullsec, which is why everyone is worked up over it. CCP wants that, but in the end, I'm not sure the players will. If the players end up hating it I'm also not sure CCP will care to respond meaningfully, because Iceland has a radical new vision and they're just politely informing us of before they implement it - nullsec is broken, blue donuts, blobbing and force projection blah blah blah. Suffice it to say that no one will be dropping dreads with an Entosis module fitted just to point a gimmicklaser at the sov beacon - with no structure grinding there's no reason we have to risk anything large and expensive to take sov now, so strategies will generally favor small, lower-risk doctrines whenever the opportunity presents itself. When 75-man Ishtar gangs with Entosis modules start pouring out of one of the many wormholes that are always active somewhere in sov nullsec, we will see whether any of this theorycrafting matters. I am not looking forward to fleeting up for four hours and standing down every day in 200 man fleets just to prove we "deserve" our space in the face of some gimmicky mechanic, or shipping up and warping around trying to respond to a fleet inside our space before the timer finishes because someone suddenly decided to show up on whatever random day of the week. Burnout mode is a go. Bear in mind the real problem is not that this is what is going to happen to Goons and the CFC - this is what Goons are absolutely ready to do right now to every other nullsec group in the universe. They are going to do this especially if they think the new sov system is a bad idea overall, not just for them but for everyone, just to prove how bad it is. The CFC is actually concerned about the overall health of the game, even if it seems no one else is. NPC and roleplaying corp pubbies can't wait to celebrate over the smouldering corpse of sov nullsec - but Goons are well organized enough that they could just do what their major rival PL did if the need arises, and not even bother holding sov anymore. This is already being discussed. Are you all willing to do what it takes to defeat nullsec, even if only in the most technical sense - even if it means rigging the game to do it? Even if it means changing nullsec so radically that it no longer resembles its former self, or anything that makes any intuitive sense at all? Are you willing to "win" based on the virtue of being less bored and frustrated with cumbersome game mechanics than your enemy? How is that so substantially different from what we already have? Isn't this just another way of "weaponizing boredom"? Maybe none of this will matter as much as any of us thinks. Maybe it will all be balanced in the end, but we will still be forced to deal with counter-intuitive and strange faction warfare style mechanics where our reasons for being out here - jump bridges, ratting anomalies - are incrementally or even radically nerfed with every new patch. No other region, no other playstyle in the game is forced to deal with the kind of challenges imposed on nullsec by cloistered game developers in Iceland. Mike Azariah wrote: Primary This Rifter wrote: Well this thread has slowed considerably. Eventually everybody gets tired of running laps. m Just like they'll get tired of pointing a laser at a thing for 4 hours a day until a gang shows up, clears them off the field and reinforces their system before the defenders can scramble a response. The real issue for us nullsec grunts is, if anyone can dock in our stations, there's no local, we're punished for not mining, we can't use more than 1 jump bridge, supers aren't relevant anymore and there's such a small margin between total boredom and significant failure, why should we even bother? Why shouldn't we just pack up and move to NPC space or lowsec? What is the point of sov nullsec at all? What is special about nullsec if it's like faction warfare but with less money? Wormhole space is also looking pretty good right now, what with its gudfites and substantial incentives for actually being there. Maybe this is the point - just a way for CCP to rig the game to finally get revenge on Goons and the rest of nullsec for having defeated its nullsec alliance Band of Brothers all those years ago. Or they're enamoured of low-skill mercenary roleplaying corps. Or they just hate large alliances for the way we stress their servers and would rather break everyone up into inconsequential roleplaying corps so nothing important happens to aggravate their IT staff (or make breaking news in mainstream journalism publications) ever again. Revenge is a dish best served with 15,000 pages of patch notes.
Drogo Drogos KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 16	Posted - 2015.03.14 14:00:25 - [1934] - Quote Like Dras said Nullsec will be burned out in the way it will currently be implemented. Contesting Sov should be about fights that are made to take sov, not to troll sov owners. If the Entosis link could be equiped on Command ships only or something similar so that attackers put more isk on the line if they intend to troll sov onwners. I think most changes are realy good, but i am affraid what it will do long term to nullsec. FC's and Line members will get fedup if they are forced to chase down entosis fitted ships that have no intention to fight or take sov. I have said it before and will say again. If you want sov you put stuff on the line, you poke the hornet nest and you are there to take their sov by either winning the fight or die trying. Reduce HP of all structures so you could grind down and clean up a region without the need to grinding down billions worth of hitpoints. Nullsec has no need for a system where a lone frigate can take sov or contest it, the tought alone tells me how delusional CCP realy is and how low they think of Nullsec in general. Sov should be about battles lasting for days / weeks / months were both sides should take heavy losses. Sov should be about putting all you got and give it your best shot were its all hands on ****. Sov should be about building your version of an empire with your rules, your fleet doctrines, in your timezone. That for me is a sandbox worth playing and paying for.
Gevlon Goblin Science and Trade Institute Caldari State 373	Posted - 2015.03.14 14:28:44 - [1935] - Quote Dras Malar wrote: . Bear in mind the real problem is not that this is what is going to happen to Goons and the CFC - this is what Goons are absolutely ready to do right now to every other nullsec group in the universe. They are going to do this especially if they think the new sov system is a bad idea overall, not just for them but for everyone, just to prove how bad it is. The CFC is actually concerned about the overall health of the game, even if it seems no one else is. NPC and roleplaying corp pubbies can't wait to celebrate over the smouldering corpse of sov nullsec - but Goons are well organized enough that they could just do what their major rival PL did if the need arises, and not even bother holding sov anymore I think this is the point of the changes. To set it all on fire. The blue doughnut is killing the game, what can be worse for a war game than no wars. There is no mechanics change that can undo the peace treaties between CFC and PL/N3. So CCP turns to the only "heroes" left: NPC corp trolls, NPC nullsec troublemakers and such. Yes, a depopulated, unlivable nullsec is bad. But current nullsec where only ratting botters are happy is worse. "every other nullsec group" aren't much better than Goons. No one attacks no one because sitting in peace and getting IRL rich from botted-RMT-ed ISK (and PLEX-affiliate links) is better than playing the game. You should all be burned and trolled and driven out of the game for EVE to survive. My blog: greedygoblin.blogspot.com
Arrendis GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 319	Posted - 2015.03.14 15:18:10 - [1936] - Quote Mike Azariah wrote: No, but concerns have been voiced and hear. One week to fanfest, months to June m Concerns have been voiced, and questions asked - and an answer to 'why does this even need to be a module?' wouldn't be unwelcome. After all, this is fundamentally exporting the FW mechanics to nullsec, and FW doesn't need a module.
Yroc Jannseen Enlightened Industries Goonswarm Federation 76	Posted - 2015.03.14 16:35:08 - [1937] - Quote Gevlon Goblin wrote: Dras Malar wrote: . Bear in mind the real problem is not that this is what is going to happen to Goons and the CFC - this is what Goons are absolutely ready to do right now to every other nullsec group in the universe. They are going to do this especially if they think the new sov system is a bad idea overall, not just for them but for everyone, just to prove how bad it is. The CFC is actually concerned about the overall health of the game, even if it seems no one else is. NPC and roleplaying corp pubbies can't wait to celebrate over the smouldering corpse of sov nullsec - but Goons are well organized enough that they could just do what their major rival PL did if the need arises, and not even bother holding sov anymore I think this is the point of the changes. To set it all on fire. The blue doughnut is killing the game, what can be worse for a war game than no wars. There is no mechanics change that can undo the peace treaties between CFC and PL/N3. So CCP turns to the only "heroes" left: NPC corp trolls, NPC nullsec troublemakers and such. Yes, a depopulated, unlivable nullsec is bad. But current nullsec where only ratting botters are happy is worse. "every other nullsec group" aren't much better than Goons. No one attacks no one because sitting in peace and getting IRL rich from botted-RMT-ed ISK (and PLEX-affiliate links) is better than playing the game. You should all be burned and trolled and driven out of the game for EVE to survive. You're ability to fluctuate between logical conclusions and pure insanity is pretty impressive.
Veskrashen Justified Chaos Spaceship Bebop 825	Posted - 2015.03.14 16:49:07 - [1938] - Quote Arrendis wrote: Mike Azariah wrote: No, but concerns have been voiced and hear. One week to fanfest, months to June m Concerns have been voiced, and questions asked - and an answer to 'why does this even need to be a module?' wouldn't be unwelcome. After all, this is fundamentally exporting the FW mechanics to nullsec, and FW doesn't need a module. True, but FW is a 30km capture bubble not 250km, and as everyone constantly notes is mainly done in frigs / cruisers / dessies. If the capture mechanic was started and stalled by whoever simply had ships on grid, it'd simply devolve into who could bring the largest RR blob covered by supers again. Which would kind of defeat the point. Making it a module, that prevents warp and remote assistance, changes that dynamic rather significantly. We Gallente have a saying: "CCP created the Gallente Militia to train the Fighters..."
Brutalis Furia Hammer and Anvil Industries 15	Posted - 2015.03.14 16:51:55 - [1939] - Quote Aralyn Cormallen wrote: CCP Fozzie wrote: We can use everything from module price... Please, please, learn from experience. Price is not a sensible balance mechanic in any way. Using module price as a balancing issue to restrict availability is only advantageous to richer entities, and from what I understand the emphasis is to lower the barrier of entry into SOV warfare, not increase it.
Nolak Ataru KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 776	Posted - 2015.03.14 17:08:56 - [1940] - Quote Mike Azariah wrote: No, but concerns have been voiced and hear. One week to fanfest, months to June m Oh the irony...

Zimmer Jones Aliastra Gallente Federation 146	Posted - 2015.03.14 17:23:03 - [1941] - Quote Entosis ship size, type, and cost SHOULD be considered for people who want to take sov. Sov is an investment in time, organization and resources to obtain what is really an isk faucet, even if the sov holders are only mining and running anoms. I would place the entry cost of t2 entosis at some sort of command ship, be it t2 BC's, orca, carrier, supercarrier or titan. For t1 entosis links, I'm not sure a small hull ship should be able to trolldunk a station, but only on the matter of investment in the opening shots of a conflict for territory. Followup conflicts should allow for any size hull, goodfights for all, but instigation should require something more than a slosh-op troll-roam. As for the death to the blue donut, I just have to say this thread is incredibly entertaining. Just watching certain individuals have to use the tissues at their computers to wipe the rabid foaming spittle from their mouths instead of other places is worth reading through the rest of the drivel. Its just a game. You are content to be content. This is not a jedi mind trick, its just a game
V1P3RR Goonswarm Federation 17	Posted - 2015.03.14 17:27:11 - [1942] - Quote Zimmer Jones wrote: Entosis ship size, type, and cost SHOULD be considered for people who want to take sov. Sov is an investment in time, organization and resources to obtain what is really an isk faucet, even if the sov holders are only mining and running anoms. I would place the entry cost of t2 entosis at some sort of command ship, be it t2 BC's, orca, carrier, supercarrier or titan. For t1 entosis links, I'm not sure a small hull ship should be able to trolldunk a station, but only on the matter of investment in the opening shots of a conflict for territory. Followup conflicts should allow for any size hull, goodfights for all, but instigation should require something more than a slosh-op troll-roam. As for the death to the blue donut, I just have to say this thread is incredibly entertaining. Just watching certain individuals have to use the tissues at their computers to wipe the rabid foaming spittle from their mouths instead of other places is worth reading through the rest of the drivel. Its just a game. if the Entosis price seems a bit steep for you , perhapse you should stick to L4 missions for a while longer....
Zimmer Jones Aliastra Gallente Federation 146	Posted - 2015.03.14 17:34:24 - [1943] - Quote V1P3RR wrote: Zimmer Jones wrote: Entosis ship size, type, and cost SHOULD be considered for people who want to take sov. Sov is an investment in time, organization and resources to obtain what is really an isk faucet, even if the sov holders are only mining and running anoms. I would place the entry cost of t2 entosis at some sort of command ship, be it t2 BC's, orca, carrier, supercarrier or titan. For t1 entosis links, I'm not sure a small hull ship should be able to trolldunk a station, but only on the matter of investment in the opening shots of a conflict for territory. Followup conflicts should allow for any size hull, goodfights for all, but instigation should require something more than a slosh-op troll-roam. As for the death to the blue donut, I just have to say this thread is incredibly entertaining. Just watching certain individuals have to use the tissues at their computers to wipe the rabid foaming spittle from their mouths instead of other places is worth reading through the rest of the drivel. Its just a game. if the Entosis price seems a bit steep for you , perhapse you should stick to L4 missions for a while longer.... My argument is that is not steep enough. Try to read before knee-jerking You are content to be content. This is not a jedi mind trick, its just a game
Brutalis Furia Hammer and Anvil Industries 15	Posted - 2015.03.14 17:59:08 - [1944] - Quote If everything's still on the table, I suggest these. They are more focused on the Time Zone issues, but actually avoid the entosis link ones too. Quote: Instead of the SOV structures being big, expensive things, make them cheap and disposable with limited lifespans. It's vulnerable for the last (x) of its lifespan, and is a very easy target to take out if undefended. No option to extend the time, just drop another once it pops. - or - Quote: Challenge/reponse mechanic. Similar to a wardec, but with specified objectives. Alliance A holds SOV. Alliance B comes in with any ship and Challenges Alliance A for the the SOV structure (the iHub for this example). Alliance A has 24h to respond with a window of vulnerability for the iHub otherwise it is forfeit to Alliance B. Alliance A or B can call on allies to assist them, but need to register them as such or their efforts will not count towards victory. Victory is decided by each side's efficiency on the war record at the end of the vulnerability window. Victory A: they keep ownership. Victory B, they win ownership. Tie goes to defender. - or - Quote: This suggestion is NOT about the capture mechanic, but about ways for smaller groups to harass larger ones. It's about SOV mechanics, so I'll add it here. If we're stepping away from HP grinds on SOV structures, add a isk cost to the upkeep for a system for automated repairs. If an iHub takes a few hundred thousand points of damage (even if it can't actually be damaged), ass that amount (or a fraction of it) to the upkeep. This would allow smaller entities who couldn't directly confront larger ones a way to make a system too expensive to keep.
Mike Azariah The Scope Gallente Federation 2637	Posted - 2015.03.14 18:22:37 - [1945] - Quote Nolak Ataru wrote: Mike Azariah wrote: No, but concerns have been voiced and hear. One week to fanfest, months to June m Oh the irony... /me laughs I know, right? There is a huge difference between 'heard' and 'listened to' and with text it is damn near impossible to distinguish between them. But even if you are listened to that doesn't mean that you will get your way. Ask any 5 year old. What I am saying is that at fanfest there will be a couple of round tables for sov (see the schedule) as well as presentations. There will be a chance for talking TO the devs and for them to present the plans for the future. Of course there will be a trailer with grande promises of a sunny future and if you consider those 'promises' then their past record is very poor. That is never what I focus on, with fanfest. It is a cool movie connected to my game, nothing more. What I look at is the people, the reports form folks in the roundtables, the talking one on one with devs. THAT is what I meant about the one week to. but if you think that CCP never listens to anybody but their own echo chamber then you are welcome to believe that. and I am welcome to believe otherwise. m Mike Azariah Gö¼GöÇGöÇGö¼n++ ¯\|(pâä)/¯
Nolak Ataru KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 776	Posted - 2015.03.14 18:26:54 - [1946] - Quote Mike Azariah wrote: Nolak Ataru wrote: Mike Azariah wrote: No, but concerns have been voiced and hear. One week to fanfest, months to June m Oh the irony... /me laughs I know, right? There is a huge difference between 'heard' and 'listened to' and with text it is damn near impossible to distinguish between them. But even if you are listened to that doesn't mean that you will get your way. Ask any 5 year old. What I am saying is that at fanfest there will be a couple of round tables for sov (see the schedule) as well as presentations. There will be a chance for talking TO the devs and for them to present the plans for the future. Of course there will be a trailer with grande promises of a sunny future and if you consider those 'promises' then their past record is very poor. That is never what I focus on, with fanfest. It is a cool movie connected to my game, nothing more. What I look at is the people, the reports form folks in the roundtables, the talking one on one with devs. THAT is what I meant about the one week to. but if you think that CCP never listens to anybody but their own echo chamber then you are welcome to believe that. and I am welcome to believe otherwise. Sorry, I don't believe anything CCP says anymore after CCP Seagull and other devs broke their promise that multiboxing wouldn't change / wouldn't be touched, and then again after another CCP dev broke his promise to have a sit-down with the ISBoxers after Jan 1. e: And I know CCP doesn't listen after the WH mass spawn thread, the fighter thread, and the ISBoxer thread.
Zakks School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State 6	Posted - 2015.03.14 18:34:22 - [1947] - Quote Nolak Ataru wrote: Mike Azariah wrote: Nolak Ataru wrote: Mike Azariah wrote: No, but concerns have been voiced and hear. One week to fanfest, months to June m Oh the irony... /me laughs I know, right? There is a huge difference between 'heard' and 'listened to' and with text it is damn near impossible to distinguish between them. But even if you are listened to that doesn't mean that you will get your way. Ask any 5 year old. What I am saying is that at fanfest there will be a couple of round tables for sov (see the schedule) as well as presentations. There will be a chance for talking TO the devs and for them to present the plans for the future. Of course there will be a trailer with grande promises of a sunny future and if you consider those 'promises' then their past record is very poor. That is never what I focus on, with fanfest. It is a cool movie connected to my game, nothing more. What I look at is the people, the reports form folks in the roundtables, the talking one on one with devs. THAT is what I meant about the one week to. but if you think that CCP never listens to anybody but their own echo chamber then you are welcome to believe that. and I am welcome to believe otherwise. Sorry, I don't believe anything CCP says anymore after CCP Seagull and other devs broke their promise that multiboxing wouldn't change / wouldn't be touched, and then again after another CCP dev broke his promise to have a sit-down with the ISBoxers after Jan 1. e: And I know CCP doesn't listen after the WH mass spawn thread, the fighter thread, and the ISBoxer thread. There's always that biomass button, if you don't like the game anymore.
Nolak Ataru KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 776	Posted - 2015.03.14 18:36:52 - [1948] - Quote Zakks wrote: There's always that biomass button, if you don't like the game anymore. Isn't it funny that instead of trying to find a compromise or a solution that would work for both sides, people are so quick to try to push others out of the game?
Mike Azariah The Scope Gallente Federation 2637	Posted - 2015.03.14 18:43:07 - [1949] - Quote Nolak Ataru wrote: Zakks wrote: There's always that biomass button, if you don't like the game anymore. Isn't it funny that instead of trying to find a compromise or a solution that would work for both sides, people are so quick to try to push others out of the game? How do you expect to find compromise when you Quote: Sorry, I don't believe anything CCP says anymore after CCP Seagull and other devs broke their promise that multiboxing wouldn't change / wouldn't be touched, and then again after another CCP dev broke his promise to have a sit-down with the ISBoxers after Jan 1. If YOU will not listen or trust then what is the point of discussing things with you? m Mike Azariah Gö¼GöÇGöÇGö¼n++ ¯\|(pâä)/¯
Zakks School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State 6	Posted - 2015.03.14 18:46:33 - [1950] - Quote Nolak Ataru wrote: Zakks wrote: There's always that biomass button, if you don't like the game anymore. Isn't it funny that instead of trying to find a compromise or a solution that would work for both sides, people are so quick to try to push others out of the game? No. I am a newer player to Eve, deciding whether or not I will stay. And the sense of pompous entitlement in this game is likely going to make me choose another. Which is too bad, because the game is great. But it is broken. Even a newbro can see that. Unless the entitled are willing to let go of the past and embrace a new future you will see new players like me move on to something else that is more welcoming. It has become a game for the 'old boys club'. And your numbers are shrinking. I respect those who have played this game and achieved things, fought enormous battles and built empires. But you are just another player. Give the newbros a chance too. peace

Nolak Ataru KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 776	Posted - 2015.03.14 18:50:56 - [1951] - Quote Mike Azariah wrote: Nolak Ataru wrote: Zakks wrote: There's always that biomass button, if you don't like the game anymore. Isn't it funny that instead of trying to find a compromise or a solution that would work for both sides, people are so quick to try to push others out of the game? How do you expect to find compromise when you Quote: Sorry, I don't believe anything CCP says anymore after CCP Seagull and other devs broke their promise that multiboxing wouldn't change / wouldn't be touched, and then again after another CCP dev broke his promise to have a sit-down with the ISBoxers after Jan 1. If YOU will not listen or trust then what is the point of discussing things with you? m I tried listening before these threads, and it was CCP who lost my trust. There's only so many times one can say "I'll give you one more try" before giving up.
Alavaria Fera GoonWaffe 6650	Posted - 2015.03.14 20:06:18 - [1952] - Quote Zakks wrote: Nolak Ataru wrote: Zakks wrote: There's always that biomass button, if you don't like the game anymore. Isn't it funny that instead of trying to find a compromise or a solution that would work for both sides, people are so quick to try to push others out of the game? No. I am a newer player to Eve, deciding whether or not I will stay. And the sense of pompous entitlement in this game is likely going to make me choose another. Which is too bad, because the game is great. But it is broken. Even a newbro can see that. Unless the entitled are willing to let go of the past and embrace a new future you will see new players like me move on to something else that is more welcoming. It has become a game for the 'old boys club'. And your numbers are shrinking. I respect those who have played this game and achieved things, fought enormous battles and built empires. But you are just another player. Give the newbros a chance too. peace Hilarious you say that to one of our karmafleet people. I know, the instant someone new appears in our alliance they're instantly not actually new anymore and become brainwashed pawns Zakks wrote: Unless the entitled are willing to let go of the past and embrace a new future Don't worry, fozzie will force us, by letting massadeath ram his long (250km!!) sov laser down our throat ^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears. Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
Syn Shi School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State 140	Posted - 2015.03.14 20:59:31 - [1953] - Quote Alavaria Fera wrote: Zakks wrote: Nolak Ataru wrote: Zakks wrote: There's always that biomass button, if you don't like the game anymore. Isn't it funny that instead of trying to find a compromise or a solution that would work for both sides, people are so quick to try to push others out of the game? No. I am a newer player to Eve, deciding whether or not I will stay. And the sense of pompous entitlement in this game is likely going to make me choose another. Which is too bad, because the game is great. But it is broken. Even a newbro can see that. Unless the entitled are willing to let go of the past and embrace a new future you will see new players like me move on to something else that is more welcoming. It has become a game for the 'old boys club'. And your numbers are shrinking. I respect those who have played this game and achieved things, fought enormous battles and built empires. But you are just another player. Give the newbros a chance too. peace Hilarious you say that to one of our karmafleet people. I know, the instant someone new appears in our alliance they're instantly not actually new anymore and become brainwashed pawns Zakks wrote: Unless the entitled are willing to let go of the past and embrace a new future Don't worry, fozzie will force us, by letting massadeath ram his long (250km!!) sov laser down our throat Its funny that you don;t realize that Goons are part of the problem.
Lena Lazair Khanid Irregulars Khanid's Legion 434	Posted - 2015.03.14 21:16:25 - [1954] - Quote Syn Shi wrote: The new system will do nothing for null. If the big alliances have nothing to go to war over it will end up with them just trolling the hell out of anyone who tries to set up shop. Including EACH OTHER. e.g. every blue alliance across all coalitions will be trolling each other with this too. I fully believe Goons will commit massive forces to trolling every sov they can find. But that means NA sov too, and NA doing it to them, and pretty soon Goon core remembering they don't like FA, etc. I agree this won't do a whole ton to bring new people to null, other than maybe the occasional WH corp that wouldn't mind trading dscan for perfect local intel. But to think that the people in null currently will only be using this to troll "anyone [new] who tries to setup shop" instead of EACH OTHER is silly. It's not like all the existing alliances are going to respect any of their blue agreements and keep ignoring each other outright once this new mechanic goes live. Sure, new people to null will get trolled and rolled constantly TOO, no doubt. But the shakeup will go WAY beyond that. Also, goodbye rental empires. Which, I think, is probably one of the unspoken goals of this change anyway... to make it more apparent just how empty and varied nullsec occupancy actually is, once you strip away any need for coalition-level supercap fleet leases. Rental space will be fractured and a lot more space will simply go completely unclaimed (or change hands so often as to be effectively unclaimed).
Lena Lazair Khanid Irregulars Khanid's Legion 434	Posted - 2015.03.14 21:22:04 - [1955] - Quote Arrendis wrote: Mike Azariah wrote: No, but concerns have been voiced and hear. One week to fanfest, months to June m Concerns have been voiced, and questions asked - and an answer to 'why does this even need to be a module?' wouldn't be unwelcome. After all, this is fundamentally exporting the FW mechanics to nullsec, and FW doesn't need a module. Agreed, but that just brings it back to one massively common complaint with the FW capture mechanic. Plexers can run away far too easily with absolutely no risk/loss. There is no act of commitment to starting a plex capture when, at the first sign of trouble, you can just skedaddle on out before anyone even lands on grid. This leads to a sense that there is no real risk involved. As this is a current complaint in FW, which is intentionally "casual", I can only imagine how much worse it would feel if nullsec sov can be contested with virtually no risk (which is basically what the trollceptor hubaloo revolves around... the idea that a ship can be fit to contest sov and be virtually impossible to catch/kill once a defender shows up). So yeah, I agree there's no point in making it a module because you will have to place so many restrictions on the module to make troll fits impossible that you might as well just pin the ship in place, set their HP to 1, and pop them while running the module if anyone even looks at them funny. Anything else will be eventually creatively abused to make a trolly fit that is able to commit no real risk to the sov contest attempt and will always be able to somehow survive to the end of a cycle and GTFO. EVE players are creative and I have no doubt they can work around even the most arcane module drawbacks to accomplish this. Which is why it should be a deployable, with the various mechanics/limitations already discussed. If you run, you give up the deployable KM and some ISK (and possibly even lock yourself out of contesting sov again for a while, depending on how mean the defenders want to be). This means the act of contesting sov STARTS with a baseline comittment/risk. Basically an opening wager that, if you fold (run away), you are losing. Honestly I'd love to see that in FW too but maybe at a much lower price point :)
Alavaria Fera GoonWaffe 6650	Posted - 2015.03.14 22:17:50 - [1956] - Quote Syn Shi wrote: Its funny that you don;t realize that Goons are part of the problem. No, goons are the problem, and ending our 0.0 nightmare is the solution Well for CCP, creating sovlasers (so that massadeath can end out 0.0 nightmare) is the solution ^^ 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 6650	Posted - 2015.03.14 22:18:38 - [1957] - Quote Lena Lazair wrote: Which, I think, is probably one of the unspoken goals of this change anyway... to make it more apparent just how empty and varied nullsec occupancy actually is, once you strip away any need for coalition-level supercap fleet leases. Rental space will be fractured and a lot more space will simply go completely unclaimed (or change hands so often as to be effectively unclaimed). Sounds like a much greater success then fatigue (which was a great success and shook up null) ^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears. Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
Akballah Kassan Zeura Brotherhood Mordus Angels 1	Posted - 2015.03.15 00:10:56 - [1958] - Quote Why not just make the Entosis Link a deployable module? You could craete a new skill that speeds up instalation, make it bulky enough that it can't be carried by a frigate or destroyer, give it the H.P of say a B/C for T1 or B/S for T2 and let people rep it while it is active if it takes damage? Defenders can then set up their own counter module on the same grid and both parties can battle it out to defend their own link while they try to destroy their opponents?
Irya Boone Never Surrender. 447	Posted - 2015.03.15 01:18:56 - [1959] - Quote no the high slot module is a good idea :) let it like this CCP can't wait to see CCP do the same thing for POS and POCOs but and here i'am agree CCP need To make having a SOv something really really attractive ( make you earn a ton and when i say a ton a mean a Ton of money etc etc , make things like you can only the door of the station In your station in your system etc etc CCP it's time to remove Off Grid Boost and Put Them on Killmail too, add Logi on killmails .... Open that damn door !!
Yroc Jannseen Enlightened Industries Goonswarm Federation 79	Posted - 2015.03.15 01:36:33 - [1960] - Quote Irya Boone wrote: no the high slot module is a good idea :) let it like this CCP can't wait to see CCP do the same thing for POS and POCOs but and here i'am agree CCP need To make having a SOv something really really attractive ( make you earn a ton and when i say a ton a mean a Ton of money etc etc , make things like you can only the door of the station In your station in your system etc etc I wish I had a sov.

Lena Lazair Khanid Irregulars Khanid's Legion 434	Posted - 2015.03.15 01:46:12 - [1961] - Quote Alavaria Fera wrote: Sounds like a much greater success then fatigue (which was a great success and shook up null) I'm not sure what this has to do with that. I know I never said fatigue would shake up null, and I don't recall CCP ever saying so either. I realize some 3rd party observers were hoping for a sea change, and that's fine, but the fact that they were wrong about that doesn't have much to do about discussing this. Fatigue had a singular goal, which it accomplished, which was to reduce the projection of capital force strength across long distance in null. At no point did CCP claim fatigue was going to radically shake up null or sov. At best they hoped it might lead to more use of capitals in small scale fights, particularly in lowsec. In fact the only thing they said about significant effect on null was "The medium-term shake-out of these changes will be very impactful on sovereignty-system changes we are anticipating making next year". Which, there's no question if this sov system goes live, fatigue + reduced force projection for capitals will definitely be a big input on how the new meta evolves to handle it.
FearlessLittleToaster GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 35	Posted - 2015.03.15 02:53:01 - [1962] - Quote Lena Lazair wrote: Alavaria Fera wrote: Sounds like a much greater success then fatigue (which was a great success and shook up null) I'm not sure what this has to do with that. I know I never said fatigue would shake up null, and I don't recall CCP ever saying so either. I realize some 3rd party observers were hoping for a sea change, and that's fine, but the fact that they were wrong about that doesn't have much to do about discussing this. Fatigue had a singular goal, which it accomplished, which was to reduce the projection of capital force strength across long distance in null. At no point did CCP claim fatigue was going to radically shake up null or sov. At best they hoped it might lead to more use of capitals in small scale fights, particularly in lowsec. In fact the only thing they said about significant effect on null was "The medium-term shake-out of these changes will be very impactful on sovereignty-system changes we are anticipating making next year". Which, there's no question if this sov system goes live, fatigue + reduced force projection for capitals will definitely be a big input on how the new meta evolves to handle it. Stop being well read, reasonable, accurate, and polite. It is ruining the tone of the thread.
Kristian Hackett Alpha Republic - Transcenders of Space and Time Solyaris Chtonium 49	Posted - 2015.03.15 03:04:46 - [1963] - Quote Alp Khan wrote: Kristian Hackett wrote: All of the current discussion from the past 5 pages is why I feel that Cruiser-class ships and below should only be able to fit the short range, long time T1 module. The long range, short time T2 should only be available to BC-class ships and above. No trollceptor issues, no T3s running about being a thorn in everybody's backsides, and it will encourage a lot of variations in fleet sizes and tactics. No, an agility/speed interceptor with even a T1 module is going to be a problem, because the fact is with every possible situation, if the trollceptor feels that he is going to be at ANY sort of risk, EVEN WITH THE WARP RESTRICTION, they can just burn away with prop mod, away from the structure, outrunning from the defenders at 4500m/s without links, or implants or even without T2 rigs. Trollceptor will end up breaking the grid by pulling distance insanely fast anyway, so essentially, this cheap ship will be a NO RISK NO COMMITMENT means of contesting sovereignty. And no, before any no-commitment type trolls try to lie and deceive anyone, you can't realistically probe down a frigate running at 4000m/s+ speeds, by the time the prober lands on the probed down position, trollceptor is already 100k away! You can't catch a trollceptor on gates either, since the trollceptor manages to reach <2 second align time (insta warp) with his speed/agility fit. And bubbles, they don't stop interceptors. This means NO COMMITMENT WHEN FLYING THROUGH GATES, BUBBLE IMMUNITY, NO COMMITMENT WHILE ON GRID WITH EVEN T1 ENTOSIS MODULE ACTIVE ON A SOV STRUCTURE! AT NO TIME THE TROLLCEPTOR PUTS ITSELF (AN ALREADY CHEAP FRIGATE) AT RISK WHILE SUCCESSFULLY CONTESTING SOVEREIGNTY. You have a 10 minute cycle time and a 20km range to structure. So, how is an interceptor that's locked to the grid for a significant amount of time just to begin the capture progress going to be a threat? Oh no, the troll burned your gate camp. You have enough time to respond to the structure under attack with a freaking carrier if you want. Aircraft Maintenance - Using a high school diploma to fix what a college degree just f**ed up. "Life is too short to drink cheap beer."*
Alp Khan GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 311	Posted - 2015.03.15 03:10:23 - [1964] - Quote Acuma wrote: GoOniEs I just wanted you to know how much we appreciate your insightful comments and good posting under this thread.
Alp Khan GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 311	Posted - 2015.03.15 03:17:43 - [1965] - Quote Kristian Hackett wrote: You have a 10 minute cycle time and a 20km range to structure. So, how is an interceptor that's locked to the grid for a significant amount of time just to begin the capture progress going to be a threat? Oh no, the troll burned your gate camp. You have enough time to respond to the structure under attack with a freaking carrier if you want. Because disabling the warp engines does not automatically equate to being locked to grid in a trollceptor. You can still burn away from the sov structure and the grid, easily outrunning any opponent with your superior speed and agility and after a certain distance, you will have broken off from the grid and will be in your own safe, seperate grid. This will make the trollceptor look like it suddenly disappeared to everybody on the sov structure's grid, even before the completion of the entosis link cycle. Until that cycle completes, trollceptor continues to burn at max speed with MWD on, and then warps away as normal to any point it chooses to. This practice is also known as grid-fu or grid manipulation. By following the above, trollceptor, which is already a very cheap ship even with an entosis link fitted, will have avoided anything landing on sov structure grid and completely manage to avoid any risk. You also should remember that the trollceptor is immune to any gatecamp, as it aligns under two seconds and cannot be locked on a gate. Finally, I assume that you are aware of the fact that all interceptors are immune to bubbles. You are welcome.
Kristian Hackett Alpha Republic - Transcenders of Space and Time Solyaris Chtonium 49	Posted - 2015.03.15 03:24:45 - [1966] - Quote Alp Khan wrote: Kristian Hackett wrote: You have a 10 minute cycle time and a 20km range to structure. So, how is an interceptor that's locked to the grid for a significant amount of time just to begin the capture progress going to be a threat? Oh no, the troll burned your gate camp. You have enough time to respond to the structure under attack with a freaking carrier if you want. Because disabling the warp engines does not automatically equate to being locked to grid in a trollceptor. You can still burn away from the sov structure and the grid, easily outrunning any opponent with your superior speed and agility and after a certain distance, you will have broken off from the grid and will be in your own safe, seperate grid. This will make the trollceptor look like it suddenly disappeared to everybody on the sov structure's grid, even before the completion of the entosis link cycle. Until that cycle completes, trollceptor continues to burn at max speed with MWD on, and then warps away as normal to any point it chooses to. This practice is also known as grid-fu or grid manipulation. By following the above, trollceptor, which is already a very cheap ship even with an entosis link fitted, will have avoided anything landing on sov structure grid and completely manage to avoid any risk. You also should remember that the trollceptor is immune to any gatecamp, as it aligns under two seconds and cannot be locked on a gate. Finally, I assume that you are aware of the fact that all interceptors are immune to bubbles. You are welcome. Again - the interceptor has to SIT ON GRID WITHIN 20KM OF THE STRUCTURE FOR ONE FULL 10 MINUTE CYCLE BEFORE THE STRUCTURE EVEN BEGINS TO BE CONTESTED. That means you have 10 minutes to chase the bastard off before your structure becomes vulnerable. Stop dinking the trollceptor T2 sov laser kool-aid and listen to what I'm saying. No T2 modules on ships Cruiser-class and smaller. If the trollceptor can't fit a T2 module then there should be no issue countering the fit. If you're that worried about interceptors then it means that you own too much space to reasonably defend. Aircraft Maintenance - Using a high school diploma to fix what a college degree just f**ed up. "Life is too short to drink cheap beer."*
Alp Khan GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 311	Posted - 2015.03.15 03:44:26 - [1967] - Quote Mike Azariah wrote: Nolak Ataru wrote: Zakks wrote: There's always that biomass button, if you don't like the game anymore. Isn't it funny that instead of trying to find a compromise or a solution that would work for both sides, people are so quick to try to push others out of the game? How do you expect to find compromise when you Quote: Sorry, I don't believe anything CCP says anymore after CCP Seagull and other devs broke their promise that multiboxing wouldn't change / wouldn't be touched, and then again after another CCP dev broke his promise to have a sit-down with the ISBoxers after Jan 1. If YOU will not listen or trust then what is the point of discussing things with you? m I'm sorry Mike, you are going to have to excuse me again on this. I simply am disappointed with a certain tendency of yours. Do you remember last week, when you were asking us to believe in an internal and private CCP statistic that supposedly shows, somehow, against the laws of simple arithmetic, the sovereign null individual income is bustling, and not crumbling as the reality shows, when compared to other types of space in EVE, even including high-sec? Now, if that is an internal and private statistic, you most likely haven't seen it yourself. Again, you are asking us who are rightly concerned about the nonsensical essence of this proposal to blindly trust CCP. Mike, it was my expectation from you as a CSM member to ask the difficult questions to CCP and question everything that has been told by developers to protect the interests of players. But you are repeatedly asking us to blindly trust in CCP, and accept everything they say as a fact. This makes it seem like you are only here to defend the interests of CCP as a company, or perhaps, in a manner similar to a CCP employee. Are you sure that this is the correct approach a CSM should be taking? You should be presenting us and the rightful concerns cited again and again under this thread, not the other way around.
Alp Khan GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 311	Posted - 2015.03.15 03:49:51 - [1968] - Quote Kristian Hackett wrote: Again - the interceptor has to SIT ON GRID WITHIN 20KM OF THE STRUCTURE FOR ONE FULL 10 MINUTE CYCLE BEFORE THE STRUCTURE EVEN BEGINS TO BE CONTESTED. That means you have 10 minutes to chase the bastard off before your structure becomes vulnerable. Stop dinking the trollceptor T2 sov laser kool-aid and listen to what I'm saying. No T2 modules on ships Cruiser-class and smaller. If the trollceptor can't fit a T2 module then there should be no issue countering the fit. If you're that worried about interceptors then it means that you own too much space to reasonably defend. So in this scenario if I know that the troll is going after my IHUB, all I have to do is park a Talos on there with the T2 sov laser and I just countered any attempt at a T1 sov laser contest. No, the trollceptor doesn't have to sit on grid within 20KM of the structure if a responder that can pose a threat against it lands on grid. Trollceptor just burns away from the sov structure grid. From that moment, the trollceptor is safe. SUCCESSFULLY CONTESTING THE SOVEREIGNTY STRUCTURE IS NOT THE GOAL OF THE TROLLCEPTOR. IT CAN ACHIEVE THAT TOO, AND IN THAT CASE, IT IS JUST A SIDE BENEFIT. TROLLCEPTOR'S PURPOSE IS TO MAKE THE DEFENDER RESPOND, AND EVADE THAT RESPONSE EASILY WHEN IT ARRIVES TO MOVE ONTO THE NEXT STRUCTURE THAT HE CAN ACTIVATE HIS LINK ON. TROLLCEPTOR'S BLAZING SPEED AND AGILITY MAKES IT SO THAT HE CAN BURN AWAY FROM THE GRID EVEN WITHOUT THE NEED TO WARP AWAY. Now hopefully, I made my point clear this time. Thank you.
Eli Apol Definitely a nullsec alt 379	Posted - 2015.03.15 04:03:27 - [1969] - Quote Except it still can't outrun a 10mn tactical dessie No matter how bold and caps locked you make it, it doesn't change the simple truth. but what would I know, I'm just a salvager
Alavaria Fera GoonWaffe 6650	Posted - 2015.03.15 04:05:03 - [1970] - Quote Alp Khan wrote: Mike, it was my expectation from you as a CSM member to ask the difficult questions to CCP and question everything that has been told by developers to protect the interests of players. But you are repeatedly asking us to blindly trust in CCP, and accept everything they say as a fact. This makes it seem like you are only here to defend the interests of CCP as a company, or perhaps, in a manner similar to a CCP employee. Are you sure that this is the correct approach a CSM should be taking? You should be presenting us and the rightful concerns cited again and again under this thread, not the other way around. Voting is over already, now it's time for them to do their job so ccp will be happy with them. I'm sure they've heartily approved of sov lasers ^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears. Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.

Kristian Hackett Alpha Republic - Transcenders of Space and Time Solyaris Chtonium 49	Posted - 2015.03.15 04:50:24 - [1971] - Quote Alp Khan wrote: Kristian Hackett wrote: Again - the interceptor has to SIT ON GRID WITHIN 20KM OF THE STRUCTURE FOR ONE FULL 10 MINUTE CYCLE BEFORE THE STRUCTURE EVEN BEGINS TO BE CONTESTED. That means you have 10 minutes to chase the bastard off before your structure becomes vulnerable. Stop dinking the trollceptor T2 sov laser kool-aid and listen to what I'm saying. No T2 modules on ships Cruiser-class and smaller. If the trollceptor can't fit a T2 module then there should be no issue countering the fit. If you're that worried about interceptors then it means that you own too much space to reasonably defend. So in this scenario if I know that the troll is going after my IHUB, all I have to do is park a Talos on there with the T2 sov laser and I just countered any attempt at a T1 sov laser contest. No, the trollceptor doesn't have to sit on grid within 20KM of the structure if a responder that can pose a threat against it lands on grid. Trollceptor just burns away from the sov structure grid. From that moment, the trollceptor is safe. SUCCESSFULLY CONTESTING THE SOVEREIGNTY STRUCTURE IS NOT THE GOAL OF THE TROLLCEPTOR. IT CAN ACHIEVE THAT TOO, AND IN THAT CASE, IT IS JUST A SIDE BENEFIT. TROLLCEPTOR'S PURPOSE IS TO MAKE THE DEFENDER RESPOND, AND EVADE THAT RESPONSE EASILY WHEN IT ARRIVES TO MOVE ONTO THE NEXT STRUCTURE THAT HE CAN ACTIVATE HIS LINK ON. TROLLCEPTOR'S BLAZING SPEED AND AGILITY MAKES IT SO THAT HE CAN BURN AWAY FROM THE GRID EVEN WITHOUT THE NEED TO WARP AWAY. Now hopefully, I made my point clear this time. Thank you. No you haven't made anything clear in this case. All you've continued to do is complain about trollceptor tactics. If you don't like how a troll is going to fight then come up with a counter for it. Or, the argument needs to be raised for a balance to be made to the interceptor class since it can effectively drive unopposed into the heart of enemy territory, which should be the most heavily defended. Clearly there's an issue there, but the introduction of the Sov laser isn't the cause of this issue, it's merely a symptom that's bringing the issue to light. Aircraft Maintenance - Using a high school diploma to fix what a college degree just f**ed up. "Life is too short to drink cheap beer."*
Arrendis GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 319	Posted - 2015.03.15 04:58:39 - [1972] - Quote Veskrashen wrote: Arrendis wrote: Mike Azariah wrote: No, but concerns have been voiced and hear. One week to fanfest, months to June m Concerns have been voiced, and questions asked - and an answer to 'why does this even need to be a module?' wouldn't be unwelcome. After all, this is fundamentally exporting the FW mechanics to nullsec, and FW doesn't need a module. True, but FW is a 30km capture bubble not 250km, and as everyone constantly notes is mainly done in frigs / cruisers / dessies. If the capture mechanic was started and stalled by whoever simply had ships on grid, it'd simply devolve into who could bring the largest RR blob covered by supers again. Which would kind of defeat the point. Making it a module, that prevents warp and remote assistance, changes that dynamic rather significantly. Not really. It takes 10M for the module to finish its initial cycle - but that's all that's multiplied by 400% on supercapitals, not actual capture time. And notification doesn't occur until that first cycle's finished. Which means if you drop 10 supers on-grid, they all entosis-link. Now you've got to kill 10 supers in 20-25 minutes after the first 10 minutes, while they're ECM-bursting to keep you from entosis-linking and delaying them. What makes it unfeasible to simply bring the biggest super-blob is spreading the fights out over the constellation on the RF - the supers are simply too slow to really bounce around as needed, and the extra time to activate the link makes it more likely more nodes will spawn, which means more ground to cover just to keep your enemies from capturing 10 while you're working on it. Which isn't affected at all by the grid size or the fleets.
Arrendis GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 319	Posted - 2015.03.15 05:01:05 - [1973] - Quote Mike Azariah wrote: What I am saying is that at fanfest there will be a couple of round tables for sov (see the schedule) as well as presentations. There will be a chance for talking TO the devs and for them to present the plans for the future. Sure. If you had the disposable income to throw at flying to Iceland at the same time that an eclipse spiked all the air fares and hotel prices. If not, SOL, right?
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 15493	Posted - 2015.03.15 05:42:04 - [1974] - Quote Arrendis wrote: Mike Azariah wrote: What I am saying is that at fanfest there will be a couple of round tables for sov (see the schedule) as well as presentations. There will be a chance for talking TO the devs and for them to present the plans for the future. Sure. If you had the disposable income to throw at flying to Iceland at the same time that an eclipse spiked all the air fares and hotel prices. If not, SOL, right? Or book six month before everyone noticed. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 15493	Posted - 2015.03.15 05:45:53 - [1975] - Quote Kristian Hackett wrote: Alp Khan wrote: Kristian Hackett wrote: You have a 10 minute cycle time and a 20km range to structure. So, how is an interceptor that's locked to the grid for a significant amount of time just to begin the capture progress going to be a threat? Oh no, the troll burned your gate camp. You have enough time to respond to the structure under attack with a freaking carrier if you want. Because disabling the warp engines does not automatically equate to being locked to grid in a trollceptor. You can still burn away from the sov structure and the grid, easily outrunning any opponent with your superior speed and agility and after a certain distance, you will have broken off from the grid and will be in your own safe, seperate grid. This will make the trollceptor look like it suddenly disappeared to everybody on the sov structure's grid, even before the completion of the entosis link cycle. Until that cycle completes, trollceptor continues to burn at max speed with MWD on, and then warps away as normal to any point it chooses to. This practice is also known as grid-fu or grid manipulation. By following the above, trollceptor, which is already a very cheap ship even with an entosis link fitted, will have avoided anything landing on sov structure grid and completely manage to avoid any risk. You also should remember that the trollceptor is immune to any gatecamp, as it aligns under two seconds and cannot be locked on a gate. Finally, I assume that you are aware of the fact that all interceptors are immune to bubbles. You are welcome. Again - the interceptor has to SIT ON GRID WITHIN 20KM OF THE STRUCTURE FOR ONE FULL 10 MINUTE CYCLE BEFORE THE STRUCTURE EVEN BEGINS TO BE CONTESTED. That means you have 10 minutes to chase the bastard off before your structure becomes vulnerable. Stop dinking the trollceptor T2 sov laser kool-aid and listen to what I'm saying. No T2 modules on ships Cruiser-class and smaller. If the trollceptor can't fit a T2 module then there should be no issue countering the fit. If you're that worried about interceptors then it means that you own too much space to reasonably defend. So in this scenario if I know that the troll is going after my IHUB, all I have to do is park a Talos on there with the T2 sov laser and I just countered any attempt at a T1 sov laser contest. And how much fun are you going to have guarding that thing for 4 hours a day, every day while the trollcepters and t3 destryoyers buzz around? People want fights not stag duty in space. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
Alavaria Fera GoonWaffe 6652	Posted - 2015.03.15 06:49:21 - [1976] - Quote baltec1 wrote: And how much fun are you going to have guarding that thing for 4 hours a day, every day while the trollcepters and t3 destryoyers buzz around? People want fights not stag duty in space. Exactly, we will have to give up our 0.0 dream because massadeath's swarms will fatigue us to death. It will shake up sov. Great success. Expect many goon tears. ^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears. Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
Mike Azariah The Scope Gallente Federation 2640	Posted - 2015.03.15 09:04:12 - [1977] - Quote Alp Khan wrote: I'm sorry Mike, you are going to have to excuse me again on this. I simply am disappointed with a certain tendency of yours. Do you remember last week, when you were asking us to believe in an internal and private CCP statistic that supposedly shows, somehow, against the laws of simple arithmetic, the sovereign null individual income is bustling, and not crumbling as the reality shows, when compared to other types of space in EVE, even including high-sec? Now, if that is an internal and private statistic, you most likely haven't seen it yourself. Again, you are asking us who are rightly concerned about the nonsensical essence of this proposal to blindly trust CCP. Mike, it was my expectation from you as a CSM member to ask the difficult questions to CCP and question everything that has been told by developers to protect the interests of players. But you are repeatedly asking us to blindly trust in CCP, and accept everything they say as a fact. This makes it seem like you are only here to defend the interests of CCP as a company, or perhaps, in a manner similar to a CCP employee. Are you sure that this is the correct approach a CSM should be taking? You should be presenting us and the rightful concerns cited again and again under this thread, not the other way around. Where else would you have me gather my information, anecdotal? I do that as well but, yes, I take the data presented to me by CCP as true. If they feed me false information then they would reasonably expect bad returns on said decisions based on the false information. Garbage in, garbage out. I agree that, at times, people lie about the situation at hand to influence decisions or make their own case seem stronger. The question always becomes 'who is lying'. When presented with data and graphs I am the first to examine it for the details and the parameters (comes from being a math teacher, I used to critique each of Eyjo's graphs as well). As for your own statements about what I claimed . . . well there were a few errors in there that I actually do lessons on. If you have a RL corp that pays minimum wage to 49 employees and then the CEO of said RL corp takes home 25 million a year then the average salary for the people in that company will be? I made no claims about 'individual income'. Always a risky thing to do in this day and age when there is the ever popular bad guy of the 1%. Tell me, have you asked the CSM members who are also members of your own alliance whether they have properly represented you or am I somehow special in you having expectations in that I actually DO come out and engage? Lastly, what makes you think I have not taken the concerns I thought were justified 'up the ladder'? Because everything has not changed overnight? Because I did not scream things from the rooftop but rather prefer to communicate in a rational manner? m Oh, for the record, the 'average salary' would be a cool half million. That is called a Mean. The Mode and Median would tell another story. Yeah, math and especially statistics are tricksy. Quote: There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics - M. Twain Mike Azariah Gö¼GöÇGöÇGö¼n++ ¯\|(pâä)/¯
Philip Ogtaulmolfi Signal Cartel EvE-Scout Enclave 1	Posted - 2015.03.15 10:01:33 - [1978] - Quote baltec1 wrote: And how much fun are you going to have guarding that thing for 4 hours a day, every day while the trollcepters and t3 destryoyers buzz around? People want fights not stag duty in space. You keep talking about guarding for 4 hours a day. Nobody is going to do that. When we receive the notification, we wait from 6 to 35 minutes depending on our indices and then ONE of the 20 people online will stop what he is doing (that probably is reinforcing/attacking a suitable neigbourg) or log an alt and chase the ceptor away. Thats all.
gascanu Bearing Srl. 201	Posted - 2015.03.15 11:45:39 - [1979] - Quote Philip Ogtaulmolfi wrote: baltec1 wrote: And how much fun are you going to have guarding that thing for 4 hours a day, every day while the trollcepters and t3 destryoyers buzz around? People want fights not stag duty in space. You keep talking about guarding for 4 hours a day. Nobody is going to do that. When we receive the notification, we wait from 6 to 35 minutes depending on our indices and then ONE of the 20 people online will stop what he is doing (that probably is reinforcing/attacking a suitable neigbourg) or log an alt and chase the ceptor away. Thats all. yea, and he will die to the rest of the trollceptor gang; what you and the ppl like you faill to understand is how deadly the "trollceptors" gangs will be; and no, they don't need to have more then one fitted with entosis link, the rest will be combat fit. now, maybe some of you can get out of that "single player mode" you are atm, and switch into multiplayer; and tell me how easy will be chasing a gang of intyes around for 4h...; or sbs for that matter, or a combination of intys and ew/fitted bombers/ewfrigs/recons and one more thing: what index will have a new conquered system? you just managed a big victory and conquered a new system? you better hurry back in less that 5' or else...
M1k3y Koontz Aether Ventures Surely You're Joking 740	Posted - 2015.03.15 12:32:45 - [1980] - Quote gascanu wrote: Philip Ogtaulmolfi wrote: baltec1 wrote: And how much fun are you going to have guarding that thing for 4 hours a day, every day while the trollcepters and t3 destryoyers buzz around? People want fights not stag duty in space. You keep talking about guarding for 4 hours a day. Nobody is going to do that. When we receive the notification, we wait from 6 to 35 minutes depending on our indices and then ONE of the 20 people online will stop what he is doing (that probably is reinforcing/attacking a suitable neigbourg) or log an alt and chase the ceptor away. Thats all. yea, and he will die to the rest of the trollceptor gang; what you and the ppl like you faill to understand is how deadly the "trollceptors" gangs will be; and no, they don't need to have more then one fitted with entosis link, the rest will be combat fit. now, maybe some of you can get out of that "single player mode" you are atm, and switch into multiplayer; and tell me how easy will be chasing a gang of intyes around for 4h...; or sbs for that matter, or a combination of intys and ew/fitted bombers/ewfrigs/recons and one more thing: what index will have a new conquered system? you just managed a big victory and conquered a new system? you better hurry back in less that 5' or else... ...you're trolling, right? If for some reason this muthical dreaded trollceptor has a whole gang with him now there's a FIGHT! Undock the rapiers and RLML caracals, cause ceptors are on the menu! To do damage inties actually have to get closer than 50km, so they'll be killable. How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp.

Philip Ogtaulmolfi Signal Cartel EvE-Scout Enclave 3	Posted - 2015.03.15 12:37:58 - [1981] - Quote gascanu wrote: yea, and he will die to the rest of the trollceptor gang; what you and the ppl like you faill to understand is how deadly the "trollceptors" gangs will be; and no, they don't need to have more then one fitted with entosis link, the rest will be combat fit. now, maybe some of you can get out of that "single player mode" you are atm, and switch into multiplayer; and tell me how easy will be chasing a gang of intyes around for 4h...; or sbs for that matter, or a combination of intys and ew/fitted bombers/ewfrigs/recons Then we will have a fight. and thats perfect. And I agree with you in that is going to be a boring fight. I already had lots of boring fights, with all the iterations of Sovereignity we have had, with one side running away as soon as you appear in the field. I only expect it will be more boring for the ceptors, who have to be there while we are somewhere else doing something that we like. After writing this last sentence I realized that I'm here defending the possibility of trollceptors when I will never use one. But I really don't like to forbid alternatives. gascanu wrote: and one more thing: what index will have a new conquered system? you just managed a big victory and conquered a new system? you better hurry back in less that 5' or else... I really expect that it increses exponentially, so you can have a good multiplier in a couple of days. Or you will loose it as fast as you conquered it, trollceptor or not.
Scatim Helicon GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 3154	Posted - 2015.03.15 12:41:01 - [1982] - Quote Mike Azariah wrote: Where else would you have me gather my information, anecdotal? I do that as well but, yes, I take the data presented to me by CCP as true. It is concerning when I look out of my window and see the sky is blue and glorious, only to be told by CCP that they have super secret internal data telling them that it is in fact pouring with rain, and that they will be making decisions about the local availability of sunscreen and raincoats accordingly. Post on the Eve-o forums with a Goonswarm Federation character that drinking bleach is bad for you, and 20 forum warriors will hospitalise themselves trying to prove you wrong.
gascanu Bearing Srl. 202	Posted - 2015.03.15 13:35:49 - [1983] - Quote M1k3y Koontz wrote: gascanu wrote: Philip Ogtaulmolfi wrote: baltec1 wrote: And how much fun are you going to have guarding that thing for 4 hours a day, every day while the trollcepters and t3 destryoyers buzz around? People want fights not stag duty in space. You keep talking about guarding for 4 hours a day. Nobody is going to do that. When we receive the notification, we wait from 6 to 35 minutes depending on our indices and then ONE of the 20 people online will stop what he is doing (that probably is reinforcing/attacking a suitable neigbourg) or log an alt and chase the ceptor away. Thats all. yea, and he will die to the rest of the trollceptor gang; what you and the ppl like you faill to understand is how deadly the "trollceptors" gangs will be; and no, they don't need to have more then one fitted with entosis link, the rest will be combat fit. now, maybe some of you can get out of that "single player mode" you are atm, and switch into multiplayer; and tell me how easy will be chasing a gang of intyes around for 4h...; or sbs for that matter, or a combination of intys and ew/fitted bombers/ewfrigs/recons and one more thing: what index will have a new conquered system? you just managed a big victory and conquered a new system? you better hurry back in less that 5' or else... ...you're trolling, right? If for some reason this muthical dreaded trollceptor has a whole gang with him now there's a FIGHT! Undock the rapiers and RLML caracals, cause ceptors are on the menu! To do damage inties actually have to get closer than 50km, so they'll be killable. ... heh, let me explain this again; this time i'll do it slowlly like for small kids: there won't be a fight; or there will be one only if the ceptor gang consider they can win; otherwise they will just warp around trying to pick some easy targets; if they can't they will just move few systems away and start again... the problem is that you as a defender have no choice but to follow them around, and do this all over again, till the 4h time periods expire or one of the two gangs gets bored. like i said, this system leave the attackers with all the options, while the defenders have only one option :chase after them around and try to make them move away/leave
Nolak Ataru KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 782	Posted - 2015.03.15 14:32:21 - [1984] - Quote Scatim Helicon wrote: Mike Azariah wrote: Where else would you have me gather my information, anecdotal? I do that as well but, yes, I take the data presented to me by CCP as true. It is concerning when I look out of my window and see the sky is blue and glorious, only to be told by CCP that they have super secret internal data telling them that it is in fact pouring with rain, and that they will be making decisions about the local availability of sunscreen and raincoats accordingly. This.
Kristian Hackett Alpha Republic - Transcenders of Space and Time Solyaris Chtonium 49	Posted - 2015.03.15 16:44:18 - [1985] - Quote gascanu wrote: Philip Ogtaulmolfi wrote: baltec1 wrote: And how much fun are you going to have guarding that thing for 4 hours a day, every day while the trollcepters and t3 destryoyers buzz around? People want fights not stag duty in space. You keep talking about guarding for 4 hours a day. Nobody is going to do that. When we receive the notification, we wait from 6 to 35 minutes depending on our indices and then ONE of the 20 people online will stop what he is doing (that probably is reinforcing/attacking a suitable neigbourg) or log an alt and chase the ceptor away. Thats all. yea, and he will die to the rest of the trollceptor gang; what you and the ppl like you faill to understand is how deadly the "trollceptors" gangs will be; and no, they don't need to have more then one fitted with entosis link, the rest will be combat fit. now, maybe some of you can get out of that "single player mode" you are atm, and switch into multiplayer; and tell me how easy will be chasing a gang of intyes around for 4h...; or sbs for that matter, or a combination of intys and ew/fitted bombers/ewfrigs/recons and one more thing: what index will have a new conquered system? you just managed a big victory and conquered a new system? you better hurry back in less that 5' or else... You talk of a "trollceptor gang" like people are going to be roaming in packs, instead of the single ship tactic that's being discussed. If you have a whole gang of enemy trollceptors rolling in, that's not a troll attempt, that's a "get off your lazy butts, scramble the fleets and defend your sov space" attack. It has been said before in this thread that there are ways to counter the Interceptors, but all you guys want to do is whine and complain about how hard it's going to be and how much space you're going to lose and how the evil trolls are going to troll you then run off laughing. This system is meant to disrupt the status quo, and do it in a big way. You will lose space here. You will see your territory shrink. You want space, you better be ready to fight for it. Dust off the sub-cap fleets, and patrol your turf. Start thinking outside of the box and looking at new ways to counter the possible threats - nothing is going to be untouchable here. This system, right here, is CCP pretty much taking all hands off of Sov mechanics and telling you slackers to actually fight and continue to fight for your space. Just because your flag is flying doesn't mean that you're going to continue to hold the system just because you can batphone a bajillion capitals. This system is designed to let smaller insurgent fleets come in and deal a major blow to some big time players if they decide to slack off. And yea, I fully expect that the smaller alliances (such as my own) are going to lose whatever turf they have right away. And we're going to have to fight harder than ever to get it back. So either sit back and watch the fireworks or contribute to the conversation and be part of the solution and not just another whine from the peanut gallery. I'm a highsec carebear for all intents and purposes and I've offered up more suggestions on balancing the upcoming modules then the bulk of you trollceptor doomsayers. So again, just to reiterate my points for the folks just joining the party: - T1 Link only on Cruiser-class and smaller ships - trolls shouldn't have it easy, and penalties applied to the T1 module would ensure this. - 10 minute cycle time on the T1 module, 3 minute on the T2 (2 if you use a command ship). Just because you're fast and cheap doesn't mean you should be able to get away with a short capture timer. BCs-up should get the faster time because they have increased risk and cost. - 20km T1 range, 250km T2 range. Again, smaller ship needs more risk, and that risk is needing to be closer to the fight. - [Outside of current thread disccussion] - the constellation-wide node capture event is going to be problematic, especially if you have neighbors that are not blue to you. Aircraft Maintenance - Using a high school diploma to fix what a college degree just f**ed up. "Life is too short to drink cheap beer."*
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 15496	Posted - 2015.03.15 17:35:34 - [1986] - Quote Kristian Hackett wrote: You talk of a "trollceptor gang" like people are going to be roaming in packs, instead of the single ship tactic that's being discussed. We have been telling you we will deploy these things by the hundreds to thousands in small gangs. Kristian Hackett wrote: If you have a whole gang of enemy trollceptors rolling in, that's not a troll attempt Wrong. Their objective is not to take space, its to harass the enemy for months on end until they give up. They never engage, they just force the enemy to always have to chase after them. It fits into our tactic for making the lives of our enemies a living hell much in the same way we currently do by reinforcing everything in a region then not showing up to contest the timers. Kristian Hackett wrote: It has been said before in this thread that there are ways to counter the Interceptors Every single one of those counters relys upon the interceptor trying to take the target, that's not the goal and thus the tactics and specialised ships don't work. Kristian Hackett wrote: , but all you guys want to do is whine and complain about how hard it's going to be and how much space you're going to lose and how the evil trolls are going to troll you then run off laughing. We are telling CCP to not gift us a tactic that we would abuse massively, we want CCP to pre nerf us. Kristian Hackett wrote: This system is meant to disrupt the status quo, and do it in a big way. And it will, it just doesn't need trollcepters and t3 destroyers to do it. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
Alavaria Fera GoonWaffe 6653	Posted - 2015.03.15 17:56:19 - [1987] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Kristian Hackett wrote: This system is meant to disrupt the status quo, and do it in a big way. And it will, it just doesn't need trollcepters and t3 destroyers to do it. Relevant part bolded. Op success. ^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears. Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
davet517 Caldari Provisions Caldari State 71	Posted - 2015.03.15 19:15:22 - [1988] - Quote baltec1 wrote: We have been telling you we will deploy these things by the hundreds to thousands in small gangs. Against whom? This isn't high-sec ganking. There isn't anyone out there that you can do this to who can't do it back. And then there are all those (NPC and low-sec entities) for whom you are a target, while they are not. I don't really think you're complaining about this because you want CCP to save Eve from you.
Dras Malar Cloak and Daggers Fidelas Constans 12	Posted - 2015.03.15 20:04:53 - [1989] - Quote This emphasis on trollceptors is indicative of the real problem. The reason why people keep talking about trollceptors is because nobody is serious about actually taking space. No one wants to take sov except as a joke. CCP might be making it easier to take space, but they're not giving us any reason to keep it. We might see more unclaimed systems, and that's their big shake up of nullsec. It might be too annoying and pointless under this system to hold certain systems, so maybe we won't, but that doesn't necessarily mean anyone is going to move into them. Whether we hold the systems a few jumps from our staging system or not is irrelevant, we can still either beat anyone who tries to move in immediately adjacent to us or we can't. Whether they're pointing a laser at a thing or in a dread in siege mode shooting a thing is a strategic difference that now actually disincentivizes meaningful military investment in sov warfare. Fozzie says people are making, and I quote, "****-tons" of isk in ratting anomalies, therefore, everthing is fine. As per the Eve Down Under podcast, CCP hath ordained that incentives for holding sov have already been addressed. Nevermind that ratting is completely boring and un-fun. No one wants to take sov because all they'd get out of it is some more forsaken hubs. What's the worst that could happen if they take a random system, it messes up our jump bridge system? Nice one. All we hold space for is to rat in and keep moons, and moons don't require sov and also don't directly benefit the line members. Our alliance may have money, and we may make a decent income, but our alliance's ability to comfortable reimburse our combat ship loss doesn't give us a motivation to fight over anything. Nullsec is stagnant because there's actually very little reason to undock except to sit AFK in a hub. But a lot of us are sitting AFK in a hub so clearly the only problem is we don't have enough lasers to point at things.
SoCal Stoli Rotsuda Lom Corporation SpaceMonkey's Alliance 19	Posted - 2015.03.15 20:58:24 - [1990] - Quote SilentAsTheGrave wrote: Unless I missed something; doing a daily Entosis Link on your sov system for two minutes will not protect it for the next 24 hours. Fozzie also stated that there will be a notification alliance wide after the warm up period has ended and the cycle begins on the sov thing. I think that the notification goes out if someone OTHER than the owner tries to get a link on the structure. I still think, based on what's been put out so far, that if the OWNER activates a link on a structure, a successful link "activates and protects" the structure, which takes it out of vulnerability mode. Does anyone have anything from the devs to suggest otherwise? It would seem to be a key issue, because a LOT of the discussions about "camping for four hours" would be pointless if this is the case.

Alavaria Fera GoonWaffe 6654	Posted - 2015.03.15 22:06:54 - [1991] - Quote Dras Malar wrote: This emphasis on trollceptors is indicative of the real problem. The reason why people keep talking about trollceptors is because nobody is serious about actually taking space. No one wants to take sov except as a joke. Well we've had loads of people wanting to end our 0.0 dream but they don't have one themselves. Given the successes seen in ending us, it would been to be a waste of planning time to lay out what to do afterwards. ^^ 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 6654	Posted - 2015.03.15 22:07:50 - [1992] - Quote davet517 wrote: baltec1 wrote: We have been telling you we will deploy these things by the hundreds to thousands in small gangs. Against whom? This isn't high-sec ganking. There isn't anyone out there that you can do this to who can't do it back. And then there are all those (NPC and low-sec entities) for whom you are a target, while they are not. I don't really think you're complaining about this because you want CCP to save Eve from you. Yes, they will end our 0.0 nightmare. It's exactly as hoped for in ccp's 0.0 vision. ^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears. Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
Aurumfault Shiptoaster Imperial Academy Amarr Empire 3	Posted - 2015.03.15 23:41:31 - [1993] - Quote SoCal Stoli Rotsuda wrote: SilentAsTheGrave wrote: Unless I missed something; doing a daily Entosis Link on your sov system for two minutes will not protect it for the next 24 hours. Fozzie also stated that there will be a notification alliance wide after the warm up period has ended and the cycle begins on the sov thing. I think that the notification goes out if someone OTHER than the owner tries to get a link on the structure. I still think, based on what's been put out so far, that if the OWNER activates a link on a structure, a successful link "activates and protects" the structure, which takes it out of vulnerability mode. Does anyone have anything from the devs to suggest otherwise? It would seem to be a key issue, because a LOT of the discussions about "camping for four hours" would be pointless if this is the case. If a "successful defense" protects the structure until the next vulnerability window, people can, and will, "attack" their own structures with out of alliance alts to get guaranteed protection. Somewhat like defensive SBUs but even less fun.
FT Diomedes The Graduates Forged of Fire 886	Posted - 2015.03.16 00:23:08 - [1994] - Quote SoCal Stoli Rotsuda wrote: SilentAsTheGrave wrote: Unless I missed something; doing a daily Entosis Link on your sov system for two minutes will not protect it for the next 24 hours. Fozzie also stated that there will be a notification alliance wide after the warm up period has ended and the cycle begins on the sov thing. I think that the notification goes out if someone OTHER than the owner tries to get a link on the structure. I still think, based on what's been put out so far, that if the OWNER activates a link on a structure, a successful link "activates and protects" the structure, which takes it out of vulnerability mode. Does anyone have anything from the devs to suggest otherwise? It would seem to be a key issue, because a LOT of the discussions about "camping for four hours" would be pointless if this is the case. I cannot quote anyone on this, but I have not seen any indications that you can preemptively reinforce your own structures every day. PS - It would be very stupid if you could preemptively reinforce your own system. The Greatest Ship Ever. Credit to Shahfluffers.
Falin Whalen GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 769	Posted - 2015.03.16 01:36:40 - [1995] - Quote FT Diomedes wrote: SoCal Stoli Rotsuda wrote: SilentAsTheGrave wrote: Unless I missed something; doing a daily Entosis Link on your sov system for two minutes will not protect it for the next 24 hours. Fozzie also stated that there will be a notification alliance wide after the warm up period has ended and the cycle begins on the sov thing. I think that the notification goes out if someone OTHER than the owner tries to get a link on the structure. I still think, based on what's been put out so far, that if the OWNER activates a link on a structure, a successful link "activates and protects" the structure, which takes it out of vulnerability mode. Does anyone have anything from the devs to suggest otherwise? It would seem to be a key issue, because a LOT of the discussions about "camping for four hours" would be pointless if this is the case. I cannot quote anyone on this, but I have not seen any indications that you can preemptively reinforce your own structures every day. PS - It would be very stupid if you could preemptively reinforce your own system. Remember this is the company that thought that we wouldn't defensively SBU our own systems, and if attacked wouldn't just go out to one of our own SBUs and turn it off, thereby forcing the fight to end until the attackers got another anchored, online it, and wait three hours for the system to become vulnerable again. "it's only because of their stupidity that they're able to be so sure of themselves." The Trial - Franz Kafka-á
Amyclas Amatin SUNDERING Goonswarm Federation 667	Posted - 2015.03.16 02:28:21 - [1996] - Quote Remember that no matter how unfun things become for the players, daddy will make us do it. And we will, because we love our family very very much. More than we actually love the game itself. 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?"
Jenshae Chiroptera The Volition Cult 1107	Posted - 2015.03.16 03:15:25 - [1997] - Quote Gorski Car wrote: There are so many things you can do to counter trollceptors I cant help but think that this is a vocal minority overreacting and creating doomsday scenarios. Quote: Verge of Collapse [CRIT] This alliance is currently not claiming any systems. CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids. . SOV is stagnant because Low Sec is not the next step from High Sec and a viable place to grow alliances to the point they can challenge Null alliances. Fozzie is treating a symptom.
Veskrashen Justified Chaos Spaceship Bebop 829	Posted - 2015.03.16 03:54:09 - [1998] - Quote Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: SOV is stagnant because Low Sec is not the next step from High Sec and a viable place to grow alliances to the point they can challenge Null alliances. Hint: Folks in lowsec generally want little to nothing to do with owning sov, see it as it's own endgame, and don't have any desire to be a place to grow more nullbears. We Gallente have a saying: "CCP created the Gallente Militia to train the Fighters..."
Nasar Vyron S0utherN Comfort DARKNESS. 13	Posted - 2015.03.16 04:51:30 - [1999] - Quote -Should not be able to have a cloak and this mod on the same ship ever, you will never convince anyone otherwise that this is a valid tactic given the current state of cloaks. -For that same reason Interceptors and all cov ops/recons cannot be allowed to use the Entosis Link- removes the chance of trolling sov which is a very serious mechanic. While it should be vulnerable, it should not be able to be trolled by nullified/covert cloak mechanics which are next to impossible to catch unless they are careless. Expecting players to combat probe all their systems to catch a possible combat recon is just as unreasonable. -Range should be hull specific,. i.e. larger ships, larger range.
Alavaria Fera GoonWaffe 6654	Posted - 2015.03.16 06:58:37 - [2000] - Quote Amyclas Amatin wrote: Remember that no matter how unfun things become for the players, daddy will make us do it. And we will, because we love our family very very much. More than we actually love the game itself. ... daddy? So it's come down to this... ^^ 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 6654	Posted - 2015.03.16 07:04:31 - [2001] - Quote Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: Gorski Car wrote: There are so many things you can do to counter trollceptors I cant help but think that this is a vocal minority overreacting and creating doomsday scenarios. Quote: Verge of Collapse [CRIT] This alliance is currently not claiming any systems. Yes, it seems they can tear apart people's tender sov while not having any sov to lose. These are the people who will end our 0.0 nightmare. ^^ 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 434	Posted - 2015.03.16 07:59:23 - [2002] - Quote SoCal Stoli Rotsuda wrote: SilentAsTheGrave wrote: Unless I missed something; doing a daily Entosis Link on your sov system for two minutes will not protect it for the next 24 hours. Fozzie also stated that there will be a notification alliance wide after the warm up period has ended and the cycle begins on the sov thing. I think that the notification goes out if someone OTHER than the owner tries to get a link on the structure. I still think, based on what's been put out so far, that if the OWNER activates a link on a structure, a successful link "activates and protects" the structure, which takes it out of vulnerability mode. Does anyone have anything from the devs to suggest otherwise? It would seem to be a key issue, because a LOT of the discussions about "camping for four hours" would be pointless if this is the case. If an offensive (non-alliance) e-link runs a full 10 to 40 minutes on the structure during the vulnerability window, uncontested, the structure reinforces. A defensive e-link merely "contests" the offensive e-link, preventing this capture timer from ticking down (it is not 100% clear from the explanations if this pauses the capture timer, or if it completely resets it; the flow chart says capture progress is "paused" though, so assuming that). So no, you cannot defend just once and then have it remain safe for the next 24 hours. Defensive e-links don't "do" anything to the structure; they don't change its state, affect its vulnerability, or reinforce it. As described, all they do is prevent the capture timer from progressing for any offensive e-links that are active on the same structure at the same time. EDIT: Just to clarify, defensive e-links DO change structure state for new TCU/IHUB's that still need to be activated. But absolutely nothing in the blog suggests defensive e-links would push existing, owned, online structures into a capture/reinforce state. Defensive reinforcement would potentially be possible, but that means you'd have to come back and win the control node contest a few days later; a process which takes time and also leaves the structure vulnerable to anyone who shows up to contest it in a subcap fleet. That said, if you win that control node contest, the structure IS invulnerable until the next day. So depending on the level of troll-y behavior in your area, it's definitely possible it could make sense to defensively reinforce things. Day 1; reinforce stuff yourself first thing, peace and quiet remainder of vulnerability window. Day 2; peace and quiet all window (structures still reinforced). Day 3; win the control node contest yourself and peace and quiet remainder of vulnerability window as all those structures are invulnerable. Also, none of this helps with regard to station services, which can be disabled at any time (or re-enabled with a defensive e-link).
davet517 Caldari Provisions Caldari State 74	Posted - 2015.03.16 10:37:43 - [2003] - Quote Alavaria Fera wrote: Well we've had loads of people wanting to end our 0.0 dream but they don't have one themselves. You're not the screw with the plans of others for the lolz people anymore? When did this happen? More than any other, your alliance legitimized that play style. People don't need a dream beyond lolz to have fun, right?
Yroc Jannseen Enlightened Industries Goonswarm Federation 81	Posted - 2015.03.16 11:47:24 - [2004] - Quote Alavaria Fera wrote: Amyclas Amatin wrote: Remember that no matter how unfun things become for the players, daddy will make us do it. And we will, because we love our family very very much. More than we actually love the game itself. ... daddy? So it's come down to this... We've been exposed. The truth about goonswarm has been revealed. GSF is not an internet spaceship guild, but a sadomasochistic sex cult that uses Eve Online as punishment when subs disobey.
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 15499	Posted - 2015.03.16 12:05:05 - [2005] - Quote davet517 wrote: baltec1 wrote: We have been telling you we will deploy these things by the hundreds to thousands in small gangs. Against whom? This isn't high-sec ganking. There isn't anyone out there that you can do this to who can't do it back. And then there are all those (NPC and low-sec entities) for whom you are a target, while they are not. I don't really think you're complaining about this because you want CCP to save Eve from you. We can deploy 7 fleets, have supers on standby, have a home defence force, highsec arm, WH group and a smattering of smaller groups doing their own thing. We will be fine, this tool is nightmare for everyone else as it fits perfectly in with the way we currently fight our wars. The problem people such as yourself have here is that you have never fought a war in sov null. You have no idea just how horrible a war with us can be. We are trying to make sov mk 3 goonproof. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
Jenn aSide Smokin Aces. 10177	Posted - 2015.03.16 14:45:41 - [2006] - Quote baltec1 wrote: We are trying to make sov mk 3 goonproof. People can't understand what you are doing because they can't see past their prejudices, hate and jealousy of your particular group. I hold no such bias, I just shoot y'all (like im gonna shoot the 2 goons who suicide ganked my implant-less pod last week, Space-Vengeance will be mine!). They don't see you as people, so they don't understand that you want a fun game experience too, and one where it's so easy to use numbers to just lolRoll over everyone (reinforcing stuff and making the targets fleet up to defend 5 nodes every 16 seconds) is only entertaining for about 5 minutes then it turns tedious. Personally, I dislike the entire system because it demonstrates that CCP doesn't understand something fundamental about null players (that kind of small gang tap tap chase'em stuff is low sec and maybe npc null sec, lots of null players play for the big slow ships and organized fleet conflict which is fundamentally different), but after June I'll get to explain this flaw to CCP over and over again by linking this discussion and a few others unless they pull a Greyscale and leave before i can pull the "what did I tell ya?" trigger
Blastil Aideron Robotics 113	Posted - 2015.03.16 15:34:45 - [2007] - Quote has anyone considered the possiblity of using scripts to allow people to choose what kind of engagement they will have, but that this will impose some kind of restriction on your Entosis link? It could for example be like a sensor damp, where you choose between scan res and range. It could work something like this: Entrenchment Script: Exchanges range for speed, causing the entosis linking ship to be a long-range, but slow moving target. Skirmish Script: Exchanges speed for range, forcing your ship into a closer range engagement but with minimal or no speed penalty. No Script: Gives a mixture of both speed loss and range. This lets you certainly have trollceptors, but only if you're willing to sit still at long range, or be really fast, but within a reasonable engagement range (20-40 KM sounds good to me). It also lets you decide to use plenty of reasonable strategies, and even be flexible in deployment without allowing game breaking mechanics. But generally speaking I would like the Entosis link to be a commitment, kind of like a warp disruption sphere. I think that if you want it to be a fighting mechanic, you need to make the link be like any of the other commitment mechanics. Once that link goes hot, you have to sit out the timer, and wait for whatever happens to happen.
Speedkermit Damo Demonic Retribution The Initiative. 418	Posted - 2015.03.16 16:08:12 - [2008] - Quote Dras Malar wrote: Fozzie says people are making, and I quote, "****-tons" of isk in ratting anomalies, therefore, everthing is fine. Come on now, hands up everyone that's making tons of isk ratting in nullsec, where are you all? Botters don't count Fozzie. Protect me from knowing what I don't need to know. Protect me from even knowing that there are things to know that I don't know. Protect me from knowing that I decided not to know about the things that I decided not to know about. Amen.
davet517 Caldari Provisions Caldari State 75	Posted - 2015.03.16 16:17:44 - [2009] - Quote baltec1 wrote: We will be fine, this tool is nightmare for everyone else as it fits perfectly in with the way we currently fight our wars. The problem people such as yourself have here is that you have never fought a war in sov null. You have no idea just how horrible a war with us can be. We are trying to make sov mk 3 goonproof. Aw, young lad. I actually fought a sov war with your alliance back when it was run by a guy named Remedial and it was serving as lackeys for the Russians flying swarms of t-1 cruisers whose only real purpose was to induce lag if things weren't going their way, and I've been in many sov wars before and since. You're trying to do no such thing. You're used to being the ones surfing the meta-game to bring grief and tears to whomever you can. This hits you where you live, and turns the tables a bit, and you don't like it. As a sov holder you're a stationary target for those who don't really care about your sov, but would dearly love to make you miserable in it. It goes around and it comes around. Looks like its coming around, unless you can get CCP to cave.
Yroc Jannseen Enlightened Industries Goonswarm Federation 81	Posted - 2015.03.16 16:18:37 - [2010] - Quote Blastil wrote: has anyone considered the possiblity of using scripts to allow people to choose what kind of engagement they will have, but that this will impose some kind of restriction on your Entosis link? It could for example be like a sensor damp, where you choose between scan res and range. It could work something like this: Entrenchment Script: Exchanges range for speed, causing the entosis linking ship to be a long-range, but slow moving target. Skirmish Script: Exchanges speed for range, forcing your ship into a closer range engagement but with minimal or no speed penalty. No Script: Gives a mixture of both speed loss and range. This lets you certainly have trollceptors, but only if you're willing to sit still at long range, or be really fast, but within a reasonable engagement range (20-40 KM sounds good to me). It also lets you decide to use plenty of reasonable strategies, and even be flexible in deployment without allowing game breaking mechanics. But generally speaking I would like the Entosis link to be a commitment, kind of like a warp disruption sphere. I think that if you want it to be a fighting mechanic, you need to make the link be like any of the other commitment mechanics. Once that link goes hot, you have to sit out the timer, and wait for whatever happens to happen. Someone else did bring up scripts, but not in this exact way I believe. I think this is interesting, exact numbers of course might be off, but something along these lines does add choice and flexibility. I don't think this solves trollceptors. Activating the module should have a base speed penalty or upper speed limit that scripts then work on top of.

Jenn aSide Smokin Aces. 10178	Posted - 2015.03.16 16:26:25 - [2011] - Quote Speedkermit Damo wrote: Dras Malar wrote: Fozzie says people are making, and I quote, "****-tons" of isk in ratting anomalies, therefore, everthing is fine. Come on now, hands up everyone that's making tons of isk ratting in nullsec, where are you all? Botters don't count Fozzie. It's not just botters, null anom isk making is superior to everything else in one aspect: Instant isk, no hauling, no converting stuff. The real problem is that people with high end knowledge can make way way more elsewhere which defeats the need for those same higher end PVErs to "live' in null. Thus the Rental Desert null became. Null anom income is good but anoms (which should have never been press-ganged into being the center of the Dominion systems upgrades scheme) are predictable , soloable and semi-afkable. That means you end up with people afk ratting with Ishtars and other ships making less than what they would make playing actively OR playing outside of null (every combat pve way to make isk above what null anoms generates requires the player to be at the keyboard and playing). The irony is that the same broken anoms system that kills the motivations for people to really live in null generates so much semi-passive/semi-afk liquid isk (again from ships like Ishtars) that it makes it look like null is this super lucrative place to actually live when in fact it's a renters desert that alliances lend out while line members go make REAL isk elsewhere like in incursions of wormholes or Faction warfare. Fozzie talking about how much isk null generates suggests he doesn't understand the real issue. Null needs a new "Center of PVE isk making" activity that requires players to be at the keyboard, doesn't spew liquid isk into the economy and that scales so that people who get better at using the system can make more money that 'normals' (like how people who know how to blitz missions can make more than the average casual mission runner). Of course the above will be misconstrued by the "don't touch y high sec mission income" crowd as some from of ploy/conspiracy by nullbears to get CCP to give us more isk lol.
Jenshae Chiroptera The Volition Cult 1111	Posted - 2015.03.16 16:29:12 - [2012] - Quote Veskrashen wrote: Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: SOV is stagnant because Low Sec is not the next step from High Sec and a viable place to grow alliances to the point they can challenge Null alliances. Hint: Folks in lowsec generally want little to nothing to do with owning sov, see it as it's own endgame, and don't have any desire to be a place to grow more nullbears. Hint: Low Sec numbers are tiny and they call all be catered for in "War Frontier" systems. CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids. . SOV is stagnant because Low Sec is not the next step from High Sec and a viable place to grow alliances to the point they can challenge Null alliances. Fozzie is treating a symptom.
Jenn aSide Smokin Aces. 10178	Posted - 2015.03.16 16:34:21 - [2013] - Quote Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: Veskrashen wrote: Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: SOV is stagnant because Low Sec is not the next step from High Sec and a viable place to grow alliances to the point they can challenge Null alliances. Hint: Folks in lowsec generally want little to nothing to do with owning sov, see it as it's own endgame, and don't have any desire to be a place to grow more nullbears. Hint: Low Sec numbers are tiny and they call all be catered for in "War Frontier" systems. Both correct. Been saying it for a while, null sec and low sec attract different types of players (in many ways, Low Sec PVErs are different from nul PVErs, those low sec guys are crazy brave, I see probes on scna in null I'm warping so they can't find my escaltion while the low sec cats are looking for a fight lol). This is why I think retrofitting a 'low sec style' system that encourages small gangs and solo and tiny-fast subcapitals to the detriment of organized fleets and Capitals is a mistake. In other words, "yo CCP, why you get low sec all up in my null sec?" lol
Exigo Venamis Imperial Academy Amarr Empire 1	Posted - 2015.03.16 16:36:54 - [2014] - Quote I'm a noob and don't have any sov experience, but it seems to me that being able to flee after using the entosis is wrong. Using it should keep the ship in grid for a considerable amount of time, especially with interceptors. Risk vs reward. I don't think ceptors should be banned from using it, because it's still a viable strategy to have a small gang of ceptors bypass a gate camp and attempt to draw a fight, but they shouldn't be able to flee at will after activating the link. My 2 isk.
Blastil Aideron Robotics 115	Posted - 2015.03.16 17:02:40 - [2015] - Quote Yroc Jannseen wrote: Blastil wrote: has anyone considered the possiblity of using scripts to allow people to choose what kind of engagement they will have, but that this will impose some kind of restriction on your Entosis link? It could for example be like a sensor damp, where you choose between scan res and range. It could work something like this: Entrenchment Script: Exchanges range for speed, causing the entosis linking ship to be a long-range, but slow moving target. Skirmish Script: Exchanges speed for range, forcing your ship into a closer range engagement but with minimal or no speed penalty. No Script: Gives a mixture of both speed loss and range. This lets you certainly have trollceptors, but only if you're willing to sit still at long range, or be really fast, but within a reasonable engagement range (20-40 KM sounds good to me). It also lets you decide to use plenty of reasonable strategies, and even be flexible in deployment without allowing game breaking mechanics. But generally speaking I would like the Entosis link to be a commitment, kind of like a warp disruption sphere. I think that if you want it to be a fighting mechanic, you need to make the link be like any of the other commitment mechanics. Once that link goes hot, you have to sit out the timer, and wait for whatever happens to happen. Someone else did bring up scripts, but not in this exact way I believe. I think this is interesting, exact numbers of course might be off, but something along these lines does add choice and flexibility. I don't think this solves trollceptors. Activating the module should have a base speed penalty or upper speed limit that scripts then work on top of. obviously CCP Fozzie is the master at charts and tables, but I think that in general the idea is sound in giving Entosis links negative effects for activation that can be changed through scripts. I'm curious though about the statement why this wouldn't solve the problem with troll ceptors? After all, the bigest problem with troll-ceptors is that they're hard to kill when the link is active (their mobility off the field is irrelevant). and can be kiting out at 150 KM with no real penalty. But if you had say a 5 min activation timer which you couldn't cancel and you were forced to go even 50% slower at 150 KM, even the fastest of interceptors would be easily caught by cruisers or even some T1 frigates with afterburners. if you force them to close range for the e-link, then they're more than welcome to go 4km/s, as long as my light missiles or warriors can catch up to them, they're toast.
Phil Maken Bad-Boys-For-Life 0	Posted - 2015.03.16 21:12:20 - [2016] - Quote Make the Entosis Link usable on gates in 0-Sec, and add a X second local delay for the gate or the pilot going though the gate on successful activation.
Veskrashen Justified Chaos Spaceship Bebop 831	Posted - 2015.03.16 21:51:18 - [2017] - Quote Jenn aSide wrote: In other words, "yo CCP, why you get low sec all up in my null sec?" lol If getting some lowsec all up in their nullsec gets the average line pilot out in space on a regular basis, risking life and limb, creating a vibrant maelstrom of destruction on a daily basis - as opposed to folks playing DOTA while AFKtaring and waiting for a ping - then I think that's an excellent goal for CCP to shoot for. You're right. Lowsec pilots are fundamentally different than the average nullbear. We don't take our personal security for granted, we don't rely on passive bubblecamps for defense, we don't assume a "reputation tank" will keep our assets safe from harm, we PvE in PvP fit boats. Nullsec could use a shakeup, and if its pilots become less risk averse pansy fleetbears reliant on a supercap umbrella and "reputation tank" then the entirety of EVE will probably be better off for it. We Gallente have a saying: "CCP created the Gallente Militia to train the Fighters..."
Burl en Daire M.O.M.S. Corp 123	Posted - 2015.03.16 21:51:22 - [2018] - Quote Jenn aSide wrote: Null anom income is good but anoms (which should have never been press-ganged into being the center of the Dominion systems upgrades scheme) are predictable , soloable and semi-afkable. That means you end up with people afk ratting with Ishtars and other ships making less than what they would make playing actively OR playing outside of null (every combat pve way to make isk above what null anoms generates requires the player to be at the keyboard and playing). I think changing how anoms work in all space should be one of the key parts of Phase 3. I am hoping that CCP will make anoms have a randomness that makes them difficult to solo or AFK. If I were CCP I would have a random chance of a burner mission difficulty NPC ship in the missions, make the AI smarter, increase the payouts and loot tables and make the entire anom more random instead of a static set of ships and layout that can be googled easily. Null makes lots of ISK but other parts of the game where risk is higher and the work load is lower can make more and I think that is kind of broken. Moon profits and renter profits should trickle down more but there should also be more line member accessible content that is fun, difficult and profitable to encourage pilots to play where they live instead of going to other parts of space to make ISK. Being able to solo or AFK anything more difficult than a L3 HS mission is bad and should be fixed. Yesterday's weirdness is tomorrow's reason why. Hunter S. Thompson
Blastil Aideron Robotics 116	Posted - 2015.03.16 22:02:36 - [2019] - Quote Phil Maken wrote: Make the Entosis Link usable on gates in 0-Sec, and add a X second local delay for the gate or the pilot going though the gate on successful activation. The mobility outside of the any site where the E-link is used is irrelevant. unless you nerfed interceptors out of existance, you'd still have problems with their ability to evade capture on gates. Besides, it does you no good to have e-linking interceptors if you have to fight, since they're made of paper and prayers, and cost almost as much as a HAC hull.
Jenn aSide Smokin Aces. 10183	Posted - 2015.03.16 22:12:32 - [2020] - Quote Veskrashen wrote: Jenn aSide wrote: In other words, "yo CCP, why you get low sec all up in my null sec?" lol If getting some lowsec all up in their nullsec gets the average line pilot out in space on a regular basis, risking life and limb, creating a vibrant maelstrom of destruction on a daily basis - as opposed to folks playing DOTA while AFKtaring and waiting for a ping - then I think that's an excellent goal for CCP to shoot for. You're right. Lowsec pilots are fundamentally different than the average nullbear. We don't take our personal security for granted, we don't rely on passive bubblecamps for defense, we don't assume a "reputation tank" will keep our assets safe from harm, we PvE in PvP fit boats. Nullsec could use a shakeup, and if its pilots become less risk averse pansy fleetbears reliant on a supercap umbrella and "reputation tank" then the entirety of EVE will probably be better off for it. That's just the useless and common low sec chauvinism that isn't helpful. Every time there is a change to null there are ignorant outsiders who spew their prejudices across the discussion. The funny thing is tha tit's those ignorant outsiders who end up catching hell (kind of like the wormhole types who cheered at the jump changes but didn't realize that their money making wormholes just became travel routes...). Wouldn't it be funny is part of fall of of FW2.0SOV was more and more null bears flooding low sec because holding sov sucks now lol. See y'all soon.

Miner Hottie Valar Morghulis. Goonswarm Federation 103	Posted - 2015.03.16 23:03:20 - [2021] - Quote Veskrashen wrote: Jenn aSide wrote: In other words, "yo CCP, why you get low sec all up in my null sec?" lol If getting some lowsec all up in their nullsec gets the average line pilot out in space on a regular basis, risking life and limb, creating a vibrant maelstrom of destruction on a daily basis - as opposed to folks playing DOTA while AFKtaring and waiting for a ping - then I think that's an excellent goal for CCP to shoot for. You're right. Lowsec pilots are fundamentally different than the average nullbear. We don't take our personal security for granted, we don't rely on passive bubblecamps for defense, we don't assume a "reputation tank" will keep our assets safe from harm, we PvE in PvP fit boats. Nullsec could use a shakeup, and if its pilots become less risk averse pansy fleetbears reliant on a supercap umbrella and "reputation tank" then the entirety of EVE will probably be better off for it. Beats chest about being space brave compared to average null sec memeber and being prepared to lose his ships, all from the safety of an NPC station which can't be conquered, can't be bubble camped and can never be properly hell camped. You then spout about defensive bubbles. Wow, talk abouy living in the past, Fozzie fixed that when he gave inties bubble immunity. Back to low sec with you and your opinions son. It's all about how hot my mining lasers get.
Syn Shi School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State 143	Posted - 2015.03.16 23:12:23 - [2022] - Quote Jenn aSide wrote: Veskrashen wrote: Jenn aSide wrote: In other words, "yo CCP, why you get low sec all up in my null sec?" lol If getting some lowsec all up in their nullsec gets the average line pilot out in space on a regular basis, risking life and limb, creating a vibrant maelstrom of destruction on a daily basis - as opposed to folks playing DOTA while AFKtaring and waiting for a ping - then I think that's an excellent goal for CCP to shoot for. You're right. Lowsec pilots are fundamentally different than the average nullbear. We don't take our personal security for granted, we don't rely on passive bubblecamps for defense, we don't assume a "reputation tank" will keep our assets safe from harm, we PvE in PvP fit boats. Nullsec could use a shakeup, and if its pilots become less risk averse pansy fleetbears reliant on a supercap umbrella and "reputation tank" then the entirety of EVE will probably be better off for it. That's just the useless and common low sec chauvinism that isn't helpful. Every time there is a change to null there are ignorant outsiders who spew their prejudices across the discussion. The funny thing is tha tit's those ignorant outsiders who end up catching hell (kind of like the wormhole types who cheered at the jump changes but didn't realize that their money making wormholes just became travel routes...). Wouldn't it be funny is part of fall of of FW2.0SOV was more and more null bears flooding low sec because holding sov sucks now lol. See y'all soon. You seem bitter.
Vic Jefferson The Greater Goon Clockwork Pineapple 209	Posted - 2015.03.17 00:06:24 - [2023] - Quote Veskrashen wrote: You're right. Lowsec pilots are fundamentally different than the average nullbear. If by different, you mean having better income and no responsibilities to defend space, then yes, different is a good word. It's altogether loopy that people have FW alts to make themselves cash when their mains are in null. I don't get the hate - FW gives lowsec people a good, consistent income stream to support continued ship loss. Shouldn't nullsec also offer competitive bottom up income to sustain losses? It should strike any thinking person as odd that people would rather have an alt in FW to make money to sustain nullsec ship losses than actually use the space where they live. Remote income sourcing is the bane of content in this game. Vote Vic Jefferson for CSM X
FT Diomedes The Graduates Forged of Fire 886	Posted - 2015.03.17 00:26:26 - [2024] - Quote Vic Jefferson wrote: Veskrashen wrote: You're right. Lowsec pilots are fundamentally different than the average nullbear. If by different, you mean having better income and no responsibilities to defend space, then yes, different is a good word. It's altogether loopy that people have FW alts to make themselves cash when their mains are in null. I don't get the hate - FW gives lowsec people a good, consistent income stream to support continued ship loss. Shouldn't nullsec also offer competitive bottom up income to sustain losses? It should strike any thinking person as odd that people would rather have an alt in FW to make money to sustain nullsec ship losses than actually use the space where they live. Remote income sourcing is the bane of content in this game. This is very true and I cannot "+1" it enough. The Greatest Ship Ever. Credit to Shahfluffers.
Alavaria Fera GoonWaffe 6654	Posted - 2015.03.17 02:37:56 - [2025] - Quote Miner Hottie wrote: Veskrashen wrote: Jenn aSide wrote: In other words, "yo CCP, why you get low sec all up in my null sec?" lol If getting some lowsec all up in their nullsec gets the average line pilot out in space on a regular basis, risking life and limb, creating a vibrant maelstrom of destruction on a daily basis - as opposed to folks playing DOTA while AFKtaring and waiting for a ping - then I think that's an excellent goal for CCP to shoot for. You're right. Lowsec pilots are fundamentally different than the average nullbear. We don't take our personal security for granted, we don't rely on passive bubblecamps for defense, we don't assume a "reputation tank" will keep our assets safe from harm, we PvE in PvP fit boats. Nullsec could use a shakeup, and if its pilots become less risk averse pansy fleetbears reliant on a supercap umbrella and "reputation tank" then the entirety of EVE will probably be better off for it. Beats chest about being space brave compared to average null sec memeber and being prepared to lose his ships, all from the safety of an NPC station which can't be conquered, can't be bubble camped and can never be properly hell camped. You then spout about defensive bubbles. Wow, talk abouy living in the past, Fozzie fixed that when he gave inties bubble immunity. Back to low sec with you and your opinions son. As if you can make them leave? Please, interdiction nullified platforms for sov lasers, it's you who will be leaving null sec ^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears. Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
davet517 Caldari Provisions Caldari State 75	Posted - 2015.03.17 03:05:51 - [2026] - Quote Vic Jefferson wrote: It's altogether loopy that people have FW alts to make themselves cash when their mains are in null. I don't get the hate - FW gives lowsec people a good, consistent income stream to support continued ship loss. Shouldn't nullsec also offer competitive bottom up income to sustain losses? It should strike any thinking person as odd that people would rather have an alt in FW to make money to sustain nullsec ship losses than actually use the space where they live. Remote income sourcing is the bane of content in this game. No, it's not loopy, and it's always been that way. Before there was anything but missions and mining in high sec people still had high-sec alts to make cash. Nullsec mirrors the "trickle down economics" of the real world. A few guys at the top get rich from passive income. The "middle class" just gets by, but, they're happy being middle class if they get to have a tag that gives them bragging rights. People who have that joiner mentality but are still a little self-interested have always had alts on the side so that they could profit from play time that was not subject to CTAs, the ambitions of their bosses, and reversals of fortune, and probably always will. If you took all of the passive income sources away - e.g. made renting out space and holding large numbers of moons impractical, the most likely outcome would be rising taxes. The folks who make it to the top will still want to get rich for their trouble.
Amyclas Amatin SUNDERING Goonswarm Federation 669	Posted - 2015.03.17 05:26:15 - [2027] - Quote davet517 wrote: Vic Jefferson wrote: It's altogether loopy that people have FW alts to make themselves cash when their mains are in null. I don't get the hate - FW gives lowsec people a good, consistent income stream to support continued ship loss. Shouldn't nullsec also offer competitive bottom up income to sustain losses? It should strike any thinking person as odd that people would rather have an alt in FW to make money to sustain nullsec ship losses than actually use the space where they live. Remote income sourcing is the bane of content in this game. No, it's not loopy, and it's always been that way. Before there was anything but missions and mining in high sec people still had high-sec alts to make cash. Nullsec mirrors the "trickle down economics" of the real world. A few guys at the top get rich from passive income. The "middle class" just gets by, but, they're happy being middle class if they get to have a tag that gives them bragging rights. People who have that joiner mentality but are still a little self-interested have always had alts on the side so that they could profit from play time that was not subject to CTAs, the ambitions of their bosses, and reversals of fortune, and probably always will. If you took all of the passive income sources away - e.g. made renting out space and holding large numbers of moons impractical, the most likely outcome would be rising taxes. The folks who make it to the top will still want to get rich for their trouble. Why should we make our own taxes ourselves instead of just renting it to serfs to rat for us? 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?"
Jenshae Chiroptera The Volition Cult 1114	Posted - 2015.03.17 05:38:45 - [2028] - Quote Veskrashen wrote: Jenn aSide wrote: In other words, "yo CCP, why you get low sec all up in my null sec?" lol If getting some lowsec all up in their nullsec gets the average line pilot out in space on a regular basis, ... Low Sec is barren, so many systems so few players .... how can it be good to make Null Sec more like that? The general response seems to be this: "We have no reason to keep SOV. So, we abandon it, go to NPC Null or Low Sec, control moons from there and burn everyone else." From what I am seeing, Goons are preparing for this and relishing it. A lot of their indy pilots are getting shot enroute to go "bank" assets in Low and High Sec stations. CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids. . SOV is stagnant because Low Sec is not the next step from High Sec and a viable place to grow alliances to the point they can challenge Null alliances. Fozzie is treating a symptom.
Mike Azariah The Scope Gallente Federation 2646	Posted - 2015.03.17 06:31:58 - [2029] - Quote Funny, Jen, your sig about hills and magnifying glasses and all I could think was that CCP is going to have fanfest to celebrate an eclipse m Mike Azariah Gö¼GöÇGöÇGö¼n++ ¯\|(pâä)/¯
Alavaria Fera GoonWaffe 6654	Posted - 2015.03.17 07:30:50 - [2030] - Quote Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: From what I am seeing, Goons are preparing for this and relishing it. A lot of their indy pilots are getting shot enroute to go "bank" assets in Low and High Sec stations. I hadn't heard about this. They're idiots. Name and shame. ^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears. Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.

Speedkermit Damo Demonic Retribution The Initiative. 420	Posted - 2015.03.17 10:05:33 - [2031] - Quote Jenn aSide wrote: Speedkermit Damo wrote: Dras Malar wrote: Fozzie says people are making, and I quote, "**-tons" of isk in ratting anomalies, therefore, everthing is fine. Come on now, hands up everyone that's making tons of isk ratting in nullsec, where are you all? Botters don't count Fozzie. It's not just botters, null anom isk making is superior to everything else in one aspect: Instant isk, no hauling, no converting stuff. The real problem is that people with high end knowledge can make way way more elsewhere which defeats the need for those same higher end PVErs to "live' in null. Thus the Rental Desert null became. Null anom income is good but anoms (which should have never been press-ganged into being the center of the Dominion systems upgrades scheme) are predictable , soloable and semi-afkable. That means you end up with people afk ratting with Ishtars and other ships making less than what they would make playing actively OR playing outside of null (every combat pve way to make isk above what null anoms generates requires the player to be at the keyboard and playing). The irony is that the same broken anoms system that kills the motivations for people to really live in null generates so much semi-passive/semi-afk liquid isk (again from ships like Ishtars) that it makes it look like null is this super lucrative place to actually live when in fact it's a renters desert that alliances lend out while line members go make REAL isk elsewhere like in incursions or wormholes or Faction warfare. Fozzie talking about how much isk null generates suggests he doesn't understand the real issue. Null needs a new "Center of PVE isk making" activity that requires players to be at the keyboard, doesn't spew liquid isk into the economy and that scales so that people who get better at using the system can make more money than 'normals' (like how people who know how to blitz missions can make more than the average casual mission runner). Anomalies should not be removed but rather decoupled from the systems upgrades scheme and should go back to being a deplete-able resource (like they are still in wormholes) so that if people still want to farm anoms and DED escalations from anoms they can, but they have to fly around a constellation looking for them. Making systems into "anomalie farms" was one of the dumbest things CCP ever did. Of course the above will be misconstrued by the "don't touch my high sec mission income" crowd as some from of ploy/conspiracy by nullbears to get CCP to give us more isk lol. Much of nullsec is so ****, you can fly through system after system and not see a single anom worth running. I've lived in Providence, Stain, Venal and Curse. The only region with plentiful worthwhile anoms was Stain. When I lived in Venal, mission-running was much more worthwhile than rating ever could be. The real isk to be made is in exploration or running dedspace sites. Personally I no longer bother doing any PvE whatsoever anymore because the experience is so unbearable. I'd rather pay real money and sell a plex every few months to avoid any PvE. Protect me from knowing what I don't need to know. Protect me from even knowing that there are things to know that I don't know. Protect me from knowing that I decided not to know about the things that I decided not to know about. Amen.
Kagura Nikon Mentally Assured Destruction The Pursuit of Happiness 2022	Posted - 2015.03.17 10:21:44 - [2032] - Quote I think several entosis link sizes Woudl indeed do the trick. Make the small ones... be SLOWish ( so you can affects things with a few frigates, but you will get bored as well and think about bringing somethign more serious) make medium ones be average (cruisers) ( very used ship size needs no extra help to be used, but they are easier to accept as an attack force) make large ones be the fastest (battleships) (these ones are basically used only as cannon fooder, so this would be a nice role for battleships (and OMG would be a buff to the tempest with the spare high slot!!!!) make the huge ones be very slow (capitals). (need to be slow for obvious reasons) "If brute force does not solve your problem.... then you are surely not using enough!" For the rest hire PoH \| Recruitment
Kagura Nikon Mentally Assured Destruction The Pursuit of Happiness 2022	Posted - 2015.03.17 10:26:07 - [2033] - Quote Vic Jefferson wrote: Veskrashen wrote: You're right. Lowsec pilots are fundamentally different than the average nullbear. If by different, you mean having better income and no responsibilities to defend space, then yes, different is a good word. It's altogether loopy that people have FW alts to make themselves cash when their mains are in null. I don't get the hate - FW gives lowsec people a good, consistent income stream to support continued ship loss. Shouldn't nullsec also offer competitive bottom up income to sustain losses? It should strike any thinking person as odd that people would rather have an alt in FW to make money to sustain nullsec ship losses than actually use the space where they live. Remote income sourcing is the bane of content in this game. Income should indeed be moved towards bottom up , like it used to be in 2006-2007 age. But this must be carefully done to not unbalance economy too much since it is a potentially HUGE isk faucet or isk sink depending on how it's done. Personally I think that economy could be paired to high sec missioning. How? High sec are the largest LP producers, Null sec could on other hand drop a LOT of the tags that LP stores ask for (and keep also an isk faucet). Officer spawns could be increased... and of course the obvious possibilities that drifters bring into the table. "If brute force does not solve your problem.... then you are surely not using enough!" For the rest hire PoH \| Recruitment
Kagura Nikon Mentally Assured Destruction The Pursuit of Happiness 2022	Posted - 2015.03.17 10:30:39 - [2034] - Quote Amyclas Amatin wrote: Remember that no matter how unfun things become for the players, daddy will make us do it. And we will, because we love our family very very much. More than we actually love the game itself. That is your problem... not ccp's "If brute force does not solve your problem.... then you are surely not using enough!" For the rest hire PoH \| Recruitment
Primary This Rifter 4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation 735	Posted - 2015.03.17 15:35:40 - [2035] - Quote Kagura Nikon wrote: Vic Jefferson wrote: Veskrashen wrote: You're right. Lowsec pilots are fundamentally different than the average nullbear. If by different, you mean having better income and no responsibilities to defend space, then yes, different is a good word. It's altogether loopy that people have FW alts to make themselves cash when their mains are in null. I don't get the hate - FW gives lowsec people a good, consistent income stream to support continued ship loss. Shouldn't nullsec also offer competitive bottom up income to sustain losses? It should strike any thinking person as odd that people would rather have an alt in FW to make money to sustain nullsec ship losses than actually use the space where they live. Remote income sourcing is the bane of content in this game. Income should indeed be moved towards bottom up , like it used to be in 2006-2007 age. But this must be carefully done to not unbalance economy too much since it is a potentially HUGE isk faucet or isk sink depending on how it's done. Personally I think that economy could be paired to high sec missioning. How? High sec are the largest LP producers, Null sec could on other hand drop a LOT of the tags that LP stores ask for (and keep also an isk faucet). Officer spawns could be increased... and of course the obvious possibilities that drifters bring into the table. It'd be nice to see officer spawns increased. It would bring the cost of officer mods down a bit encouraging more people to fit them (and likely spend more on their fits than they do now), while providing a viable method of income generation for people who are patient enough to pursue it. I once tried farming officers, and honestly out of the thousands of belts I went into I only ever had two officer rats, the better one of which only had a lot drop of 300M. Only one of those dropped an officer mod either, and it was a multispec ECM... less than useless. Reminder: CCP thinks you have no right to your alliance logos.
Soldarius Kosher Nostra The 99 Percent 1179	Posted - 2015.03.17 15:41:30 - [2036] - Quote I was bored this weekend and went belt ratting in a hisec .45-49 system (sec status is rounded to the nearest tenth). Got a faction spawn. It didn't even drop faction ammo. Just a copper tag. Really? Not even faction ammo? They used to drop BPCs. http://youtu.be/YVkUvmDQ3HY
Primary This Rifter 4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation 736	Posted - 2015.03.17 15:44:49 - [2037] - Quote davet517 wrote: baltec1 wrote: We have been telling you we will deploy these things by the hundreds to thousands in small gangs. Against whom? This isn't high-sec ganking. There isn't anyone out there that you can do this to who can't do it back. And then there are all those (NPC and low-sec entities) for whom you are a target, while they are not. I don't really think you're complaining about this because you want CCP to save Eve from you. They don't have to not do it back. We just have to do it better. And you people seriously have an awful memory, because complaining about changes because we want CCP to save EVE from us has been our consistent track record for the past several years. Reminder: CCP thinks you have no right to your alliance logos.
Veskrashen Justified Chaos Spaceship Bebop 833	Posted - 2015.03.17 15:59:01 - [2038] - Quote Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: Veskrashen wrote: Jenn aSide wrote: In other words, "yo CCP, why you get low sec all up in my null sec?" lol If getting some lowsec all up in their nullsec gets the average line pilot out in space on a regular basis, ... Low Sec is barren, so many systems so few players .... how can it be good to make Null Sec more like that? FW lowsec is a completely different story, and consistently the most regularly violent area of space in the game. I would absolutely love to see Nullsec more like that. To folks complaining about us not needing to defend sov, you're wrong, we do it day in and day out. Having that flag on the map - and keeping it there - is what my alliance is about. We get assets locked in stations, and while we can Black Frog it out, with the new Freeport mechanic those options would be available to nullbears as well. As I mentioned, we operate under no illusions that we can lock folks out of our space, or out of space we conquer. We conquer Caldari space, and they can be right back hitting it the very next day. In general, that leads to a much more fluid and dynamic warzone than the stagnation that grips sov nullsec so often. In addition, if any of you had actually bothered to research my post history, you'd know that I consistently oppose FW being used as an LP / isk ATM by bored nullbears and others with no commitment to living and fighting inside the warzones. I'd much prefer for the top end FW income to be reduced and missions to be made far more difficult for the 3 factions who can currently AFK them in bombers. I'd also support a revamp of sov nullsec economics, and if any of you had bothered to read the CSM comments from folks like Xander, you'd know that those things are already in train for Phase 3. You'd also know that CCP saw that if they did the nullsec income revamp first, that'd make entrenched parties far far richer than would be healthy for the game. So shake up the sov map, then increase the incentives to live there. If you're smart, you'll tough out the Phase 2 changes and hold the line, since Phase 3 will probably make it very very worthwhile indeed. We Gallente have a saying: "CCP created the Gallente Militia to train the Fighters..."
davet517 Caldari Provisions Caldari State 76	Posted - 2015.03.17 16:22:32 - [2039] - Quote Amyclas Amatin wrote: [ Why should we make our own taxes ourselves instead of just renting it to serfs to rat for us? Because the serfs who would pay you can't defend it, and those who can won't be your serfs. In the current model, you can have renters far away from you, because sov rarely gets challenged, and you don't really care about them being victimized by afk cloakers and roaming gangs. In the new model, those same roaming gangs can put your sov, and your renter's iHubs, at risk, repeatedly, to the point that being an absentee landlord becomes impractical. You can remove the pretense of calling it rent and move to a straight up extortion model, where the people that their protection money protects them from is you, but, that's going to be a pretty crappy deal when they'll likely get extorted/victimized by others too, and there won't be much you can do about it short of charging them rent to live in your home space so that you can babysit them, which is fine, as long as your members don't intend or desire to rat themselves. Good luck with that.
davet517 Caldari Provisions Caldari State 76	Posted - 2015.03.17 16:31:00 - [2040] - Quote Primary This Rifter wrote: They don't have to not do it back. We just have to do it better. And you people seriously have an awful memory, because complaining about changes because we want CCP to save EVE from us has been our consistent track record for the past several years. And I don't think you're getting that you can only do it to a sov holder. Those who live in NPC space don't really care how well you can do it, only that while you're out there doing it, they can do it to you. This change does not favor top-down monolithic entities with a lot of territory, and fixed infrastructure. It favors guerrillas. A long time ago, when you lived in Syndicate and had nothing to lose, that was you, but, that was a long time ago.

Zhul Chembull Universalis Imperium The Bastion 97	Posted - 2015.03.17 16:38:00 - [2041] - Quote Gorski Car wrote: There are so many things you can do to counter trollceptors I cant help but think that this is a vocal minority overreacting and creating doomsday scenarios. Not at all it has been logically explained for all to see. I do not want to chase around nano fleets that can burn through bubbles during my 4 hours. Not fun. On the other hand make them used on any other than an interceptor or covert ops and I'm fine.
Speedkermit Damo Demonic Retribution The Initiative. 421	Posted - 2015.03.17 17:06:37 - [2042] - Quote Soldarius wrote: I was bored this weekend and went belt ratting in a hisec .45-49 system (sec status is rounded to the nearest tenth). Got a faction spawn. It didn't even drop faction ammo. Just a copper tag. Really? Not even faction ammo? They used to drop BPCs. I lived in Venal for a year, did a lot of belt ratting - never saw a single dread Gurista in all that time. Lived in Providence and Stain for a couple of years, and only saw a True Sansha a couple of times. Nullsec ratting income is shite, no wonder hardly anyone does it any more. Protect me from knowing what I don't need to know. Protect me from even knowing that there are things to know that I don't know. Protect me from knowing that I decided not to know about the things that I decided not to know about. Amen.
Speedkermit Damo Demonic Retribution The Initiative. 421	Posted - 2015.03.17 17:17:38 - [2043] - Quote Zhul Chembull wrote: Gorski Car wrote: There are so many things you can do to counter trollceptors I cant help but think that this is a vocal minority overreacting and creating doomsday scenarios. Not at all it has been logically explained for all to see. I do not want to chase around nano fleets that can burn through bubbles during my 4 hours. Not fun. On the other hand make them used on any other than an interceptor or covert ops and I'm fine. In other words, nothing that has a chance of getting past the insta-lock gatecamps you guys want to use to lock down your space. Protect me from knowing what I don't need to know. Protect me from even knowing that there are things to know that I don't know. Protect me from knowing that I decided not to know about the things that I decided not to know about. Amen.
Veskrashen Justified Chaos Spaceship Bebop 833	Posted - 2015.03.17 17:31:59 - [2044] - Quote Zhul Chembull wrote: Gorski Car wrote: There are so many things you can do to counter trollceptors I cant help but think that this is a vocal minority overreacting and creating doomsday scenarios. Not at all it has been logically explained for all to see. I do not want to chase around nano fleets that can burn through bubbles during my 4 hours. Not fun. On the other hand make them used on any other than an interceptor or covert ops and I'm fine. It has been explaing for all to see that the counters exist, you folks just don't want to put forth the effort to use them. We Gallente have a saying: "CCP created the Gallente Militia to train the Fighters..."
Nasar Vyron S0utherN Comfort DARKNESS. 14	Posted - 2015.03.17 18:01:48 - [2045] - Quote Speedkermit Damo wrote: Zhul Chembull wrote: Gorski Car wrote: There are so many things you can do to counter trollceptors I cant help but think that this is a vocal minority overreacting and creating doomsday scenarios. Not at all it has been logically explained for all to see. I do not want to chase around nano fleets that can burn through bubbles during my 4 hours. Not fun. On the other hand make them used on any other than an interceptor or covert ops and I'm fine. In other words, nothing that has a chance of getting past the insta-lock gatecamps you guys want to use to lock down your space. What exactly is the problem with that? You want to get into a country you have to get past customs first. Ceptors and covert cloaks allow players to subvert nearly all defenses but the perfect defense: smart bombing battleships. I get so excited just Imagining 4 hours of sitting on all entry gates smart bombing as a small gang sits around to catch anyone who manged to get past via wormholes. Yes, fun was had by all as we sit tabbed out into another game as mine and other's alts effectively closed off all traffic for 4 hours a day. OR You could make the attacker actually fly something that gave a variety of options to counter and be countered - creating actual content that forced people to put forth effort and planning when handling issues related to SOV.
Vic Jefferson The Greater Goon Clockwork Pineapple 216	Posted - 2015.03.17 19:02:31 - [2046] - Quote Kagura Nikon wrote: Vic Jefferson wrote: Veskrashen wrote: You're right. Lowsec pilots are fundamentally different than the average nullbear. If by different, you mean having better income and no responsibilities to defend space, then yes, different is a good word. It's altogether loopy that people have FW alts to make themselves cash when their mains are in null. I don't get the hate - FW gives lowsec people a good, consistent income stream to support continued ship loss. Shouldn't nullsec also offer competitive bottom up income to sustain losses? It should strike any thinking person as odd that people would rather have an alt in FW to make money to sustain nullsec ship losses than actually use the space where they live. Remote income sourcing is the bane of content in this game. Income should indeed be moved towards bottom up , like it used to be in 2006-2007 age. But this must be carefully done to not unbalance economy too much since it is a potentially HUGE isk faucet or isk sink depending on how it's done. Personally I think that economy could be paired to high sec missioning. How? High sec are the largest LP producers, Null sec could on other hand drop a LOT of the tags that LP stores ask for (and keep also an isk faucet). Officer spawns could be increased... and of course the obvious possibilities that drifters bring into the table. Eh, the officer spawns should be left alone. It used to be exciting when you nabbed a deadspace fitted thing, but thanks to the escalation changes, they have lost the better part of their value. Let officer mods maintain their mystique. Vote Vic Jefferson for CSM X
Aiyshimin Fistful of Finns Triumvirate. 473	Posted - 2015.03.17 19:11:14 - [2047] - Quote Some specific questions on the Command Node capture event: Are the Command Nodes in deadspace? (like Large FW complexes) Is the exact victory condition for the event just "whoever first completes 10 nodes"? Can NPC corp members use Entosis Links on structures? Does the Entosis Link cycle continue without target lock? Do the nodes have a visible timer for everyone on grid?
Veskrashen Justified Chaos Spaceship Bebop 834	Posted - 2015.03.17 19:14:09 - [2048] - Quote Nasar Vyron wrote: Speedkermit Damo wrote: In other words, nothing that has a chance of getting past the insta-lock gatecamps you guys want to use to lock down your space. What exactly is the problem with that? You want to get into a country you have to get past customs and border patrol first. WHs are your Coyotes, use them! Ceptors and covert cloaks allow players to subvert nearly all defenses but the perfect defense: smart bombing battleships. I get so excited just Imagining 4 hours of sitting on all entry gates smart bombing as a small gang sits around to catch anyone who manged to get past via wormholes. Yes, fun was had by all as we sit tabbed out into another game as mine and other's alts effectively closed off all traffic for 4 hours a day. OR You could make the attacker actually fly something that gave the defender a variety of options to counter and be countered - creating actual content that forced people to put forth effort and planning when handling issues related to SOV. Because the goal is to force you to be present and active in ALL the space you claim, not just the borders and chokepoints. To force you to move about and be active in space, not to let a small minority "guard the walls" against the rampaging hordes while everyone else AFKtars in peace. Nullbears have been whining about Interceptor bubble immunity since it was introduced; the fact that you all want to ensure they can't use Entosis Links to disrupt your home is just another verse in the same old song. Interceptors should, and indeed must, be allowed to use Entosis Links for that very reason. We Gallente have a saying: "CCP created the Gallente Militia to train the Fighters..."
Nasar Vyron S0utherN Comfort DARKNESS. 14	Posted - 2015.03.17 19:56:07 - [2049] - Quote Veskrashen wrote: Because the goal is to force you to be present and active in ALL the space you claim, not just the borders and chokepoints. To force you to move about and be active in space, not to let a small minority "guard the walls" against the rampaging hordes while everyone else AFKtars in peace. Nullbears have been whining about Interceptor bubble immunity since it was introduced; the fact that you all want to ensure they can't use Entosis Links to disrupt your home is just another verse in the same old song. Interceptors should, and indeed must, be allowed to use Entosis Links for that very reason. You literally had me laughing man. Seriously, do you know what game you are playing? Do you know that it is a game at all? Do you even know what Null sec is about? It is empire building plain and simple. Meaning the number one concern is/was/always will be is controlling your borders and keeping a capable police force within to maintain the peace. You are suggesting that every player online should be actively roaming and protecting during these 4 hour windows, that is not a play style the vast majority of players are okay with (when it comes to game mechanics this is the all important factor); certainly not the ones who are attracted to nullsec. Some people have jobs and can only manage 4 or less hours a day to even be online. Forcing them to spend what time they have playing catch the ceptor gang is not a very good incentive to live in null, let along maintain a subscription. Please try to understand this, EVE is a sandbox. Which means you are playing with hundreds and thousands of other players who have play styles that differ from your own. People of high sec typically like the relative calm and ability to log on do what they want and log out again without being told what to do. People of low are typically the skirmishers who like to brawl while knowing their assets are safe at home. But have a taste for adventure and don't mind following orders from time to time if it means more action. People of null are the empire builders. They want to take this universe and manipulate it to suit their needs through industry and force. They give up all forms of perfect safety provided by NPC space knowing that their assets can be lost if not vigilant. This means that at times when the FC says "jump" you better jump. I'll end with this, null is home to a myriad of players and play styles all active during different times of the day. Coalitions and renters exist and are popular for this very reason. They are both the builders and protectors of there slice of the universe. People rent because they wish to do what they want when they want under the protection of the coalitions as they have little interest in fleet combat or territory disputes. Coalitions exist because their is power in numbers. Trying to push a certain play style upon others defeats the underlining principles of a sandbox game.
Veskrashen Justified Chaos Spaceship Bebop 834	Posted - 2015.03.17 20:09:03 - [2050] - Quote Nasar Vyron wrote: You literally had me laughing man. Seriously, do you know what game you are playing? Do you know that it is a game at all? Do you even know what Null sec is about? It is empire building plain and simple. Meaning the number one concern is/was/always will be is controlling your borders and keeping a capable police force within to maintain the peace. You are suggesting that every player online should be actively roaming and protecting during these 4 hour windows, that is not a play style the vast majority of players are okay with (when it comes to game mechanics this is the all important factor); certainly not the ones who are attracted to nullsec. Some people have jobs and can only manage 4 or less hours a day to even be online. Forcing them to spend what time they have playing catch the ceptor gang is not a very good incentive to live in null, let along maintain a subscription. Please try to understand this, EVE is a sandbox. Which means you are playing with hundreds and thousands of other players who have play styles that differ from your own. People of high sec typically like the relative calm and ability to log on do what they want and log out again without being told what to do. People of low typically like to fight while knowing their assets are safe at home. But have a taste for adventure and don't mind following orders from time to time if it means more action. People of null are the empire builders. They want to take this universe and manipulate it to suit their needs through industry and force. They give up all forms of perfect safety provided by NPC space knowing that their assets can be lost if not vigilant. This means that at times when the FC says "jump" you better jump. I'll end with this, null is home to a myriad of players and play styles all active during different times of the day. Coalitions and renters exist and are popular for this very reason. They are both the builders and protectors of there slice of the universe. People rent because they wish to do what they want when they want under the protection of the coalitions as they have little interest in fleet combat or territory disputes. Coalitions exist because their is power in numbers. Trying to push a certain play style upon others defeats the underlining principles of a sandbox game. I'm well aware of what game i'm playing, well aware that people have differing play styles, etc etc etc. I'm well aware that null is about building empires and planting your flag. I've been in nullsec, I've built empires, I've planted flags. Been there, done that, have the t-shirt. What I object to - and what nullsec players seem to have a hard time understanding - is that you shouldn't be able to build nice, high walls and not have to worry about the barbarians at the gate anymore. Interceptors, with their bubble immunity and ability to instantly align, provide a way to cross that impenetrable border to screw with the sheep in the interior. Do wormholes offer an option to jump that wall as well? Sure. But - and this is very important - once you're inside the walls, if you're not in something that's interdiction immune, you can still be bubbleinstalockcamped into whatever corner of sov nullspace you've been able to penetrate. You can, in short, be easily contained. The threat of roaming Interceptors - ones that can't simply be be bubbleinstalockcamped into irrelevance - is what forces folks to be aware, to react, rather than simply sit around in perfect safety. Giving those same Interceptors the ability to impact sov - to literally set the bar so low for sov influence that ANYONE can screw with it, given the desire - means you can't rely on a supercap umbrella plus reputation tank plus bubbleinstalockcamps to keep your sov. You need to be willing to respond to threats quickly and decisively, all throughout your space. Given that CCP has not yet given in to the nullbear demands to nerf Interceptor interdiction immunity, and given the fact that CCP Fozzie's design goal was to not restrict the Entosis Link from being used on any ship platform, I think we can take it as a given that part of CCP's design goals are specifically to prevent bubbleinstalockcamps from being a viable way to secure your sov. That they want the ninja marauding hordes of SovCeptors screwing with sov. That they want to force people to move, to react, to undock, to chase and to fight - or to risk losing their sov due to inaction. In my opinion, that requirement to react is going to force empires to shrink to sizes where they are willing and able to respond quickly and effectively. How that impetus will shape the nullsec sovreignty map over time is something that is totally up in the air, but I'm reasonably confident it won't look like it does today. And that's a good thing. We Gallente have a saying: "CCP created the Gallente Militia to train the Fighters..."

Nasar Vyron S0utherN Comfort DARKNESS. 14	Posted - 2015.03.17 20:29:35 - [2051] - Quote And that is why all of null sov is saying that these proposed changes are a mixed bag. If you want sov you should be forced to repeatedly chip away at our walls until they crumble because we are fatigued by constant harassment. This is our home, it should not be suddenly open to attack from every angle and from within by forces that can only be chased not caught. There is no need for commitment by the attacker with this system, that is bad. Yes, if you take a WH to get behind our walls in larger ships you will be vulnerable, that is fair play. You are wanting to take our assets we should be able to kill yours. You were able to circumvent our defenses via WHs and it will now take time for us to react. It's called commitment! If you want to take sov, commit. Don't just run around laughing as you screw with people in ships that are near uncatchable.
Aiyshimin Fistful of Finns Triumvirate. 474	Posted - 2015.03.17 20:56:41 - [2052] - Quote Nasar Vyron wrote: Trying to push a certain play style upon others defeats the underlining principles of a sandbox game. Exactly, and most players in this sandbox don't want the blue donut coalition playstyle enforced upon all of nullsec. CCP has also realised that it's bad for the game in the long run, and is making an effort to end the rental rmt era.
FT Diomedes The Graduates Forged of Fire 888	Posted - 2015.03.17 21:58:02 - [2053] - Quote Soldarius wrote: I was bored this weekend and went belt ratting in a hisec .45-49 system (sec status is rounded to the nearest tenth). Got a faction spawn. It didn't even drop faction ammo. Just a copper tag. Really? Not even faction ammo? They used to drop BPCs. That happens in nullsec too. Random number is random. The Greatest Ship Ever. Credit to Shahfluffers.
Miner Hottie Valar Morghulis. Goonswarm Federation 108	Posted - 2015.03.17 22:33:06 - [2054] - Quote Kagura Nikon wrote: Amyclas Amatin wrote: Remember that no matter how unfun things become for the players, daddy will make us do it. And we will, because we love our family very very much. More than we actually love the game itself. That is your problem... not ccp's Actually, it will become everyone's problem, including CCP's. Unfun and broken mechanics must be exploited. It's all about how hot my mining lasers get.
Nasar Vyron S0utherN Comfort DARKNESS. 14	Posted - 2015.03.17 23:22:56 - [2055] - Quote Aiyshimin wrote: Nasar Vyron wrote: Trying to push a certain play style upon others defeats the underlining principles of a sandbox game. Exactly, and most players in this sandbox don't want the blue donut coalition playstyle enforced upon all of nullsec. CCP has also realised that it's bad for the game in the long run, and is making an effort to end the rental rmt era. To start off, screw anyone who does RMT. But that is not a topic you can lump into sov warfare and renting. Coalitions and renting go hand in hand, that you can compare. Renting is done through in game isk, not rmt w/e rumors you may have fallen prey to. Anyway, the difference here is that influence is coming from within, not from outside. The blue doughnut **** is getting old yes, but people gathering together temporarily to protect their own interests in human nature, in a sandbox that is going to happen as years go by. Eve is old, you're seeing the natural progression of everything. CCP will never be able to patch in such a change that accomplish this without basically kissing off a very large percentage of their null subscriptions which, yes, would be the death of the game. As such a patch would force people to want to turn on their now RL friends to get enjoyment out of the game or risk losing everything if they don't. CCP deciding that the skirmish warfare and being able to hit enemies constantly from behind their own borders is the end all be all of sov warfare does not belong in a sandbox. I'm not saying small scale skirmishes don't belong, because it does and it does happen. But sov is very delicate mechanic, and people's desire to just screw with something so important so easily and without the need for commitment is F-ed.
Veskrashen Justified Chaos Spaceship Bebop 838	Posted - 2015.03.17 23:31:54 - [2056] - Quote Nasar Vyron wrote: And that is why all of null sov is saying that these proposed changes are a mixed bag. If you want sov you should be forced to repeatedly chip away at our walls until they crumble because we are fatigued by constant harassment. This is our home, it should not be suddenly open to attack from every angle and from within by forces that can only be chased not caught. There is no need for commitment by the attacker with this system, that is bad. Yes, if you take a WH to get behind our walls in larger ships you will be vulnerable, that is fair play. You are wanting to take our assets we should be able to kill yours. You were able to circumvent our defenses via WHs and it will now take time for us to react. It's called commitment! If you want to take sov, commit. Don't just run around laughing as you screw with people in ships that are near uncatchable. Actually, I think you have it backwards, at least in terms of Fozziesov. At the moment, you already have those high walls - the massive EHP grinds, the SBUs, iHubs and TCUs and multiple timers for each - that attackers are forced to chip away at until they crumble because of fatigue. It is exactly these walls that have contributed to the stagnation in nullsec, and it's these mechanics - the walls - that Fozziesov is intended to upend. In Fozziesov, the whole point is that an attacker DOESN'T have to grind you down to make progress. That ANY attacker, no small or how large, is a credible threat to your sov - if you refuse or are unable to respond. The CCP design goal of enabling any ship and any doctrine to mount an Entosis Link - and therefore allow any ship or doctrine to threaten sov - is precisely to remove artificial barriers like EHP walls. Which is to say - the whole point of Fozziesov is to make your home suddenly open to attack from every angle... for at least four hours per day. Mind you, this doesn't prevent you from shaping the field of battle per se. Erecting bubbleinstalock camps at strategic chokepoints forces an attacker to make choices - do they bash their way in by force of arms, do they infiltrate via WHs, or do they blow past the blockade in nigh uncatchable Trollceptors? That choice, in turn, defines the tactical problem the defenders need to solve. A brute force assault lends itself to pitched battles, WH infiltration means contain and burn them out, Trollceptors mean breaking out the pipebombs and Snaked Linked Faction Fitted solo junkies incentivised by bounties posted by your alliance. So yes - you can erect walls as high and deep as you choose, and they will offer some measure of security. But part of CCP's design goals - which are evident in any clear reading of the blogs and the OP of this thread - are that no matter how big you are, and no matter how high you build those walls, you're not safe. That you are always under threat, and will always be required to respond - or you risk losing what you've conquered and built. Tying RF times to system indexes, allowing a defender to halt an attacker's progress simply by activating their own Link... these things are designed to give a defender time to react - not to remove the burden of responding entirely. It's a Brave new world, my friend - and I look forward to seeing who is able to adapt and thrive, and who's been resting on a rotten throne. Nasar Vyron wrote: CCP deciding that the skirmish warfare and being able to hit enemies constantly from behind their own borders is the end all be all of sov warfare does not belong in a sandbox. I'm not saying small scale skirmishes don't belong, because it does and it does happen. But sov is very delicate mechanic, and people's desire to just screw with something so important so easily and without the need for commitment DOES NOT BELONG IN THIS GAME. You seem to forget that it's CCP's sandbox you're playing in, son. They decide the rules of the game, not you. And quite frankly, since CCP is looking at the health of the ENTIRE game, not just catering to the nullbear blocs who whine when anyone threatens their little apple cart, perhaps one might sit back and think about how limiting sov warfare to massive supercap blobs might be killing the game as a whole. You've already alluded to nullbears who spend most of their time alting on FW or incursion alts - what happens when they suddenly have to be active in their "real" homes? How does that impact all the other areas of the game, how does that improve the health of EVE as a whole? You have no right to demand the sandbox be tailored to your needs. Finally, Gewns screaming about other people being able to screw with their sov games without commitment or consequence has to be one of the richest damn pieces of irony ever committed to print. We Gallente have a saying: "CCP created the Gallente Militia to train the Fighters..."
Wanda Fayne Gurlz with Gunz 58	Posted - 2015.03.17 23:47:50 - [2057] - Quote Miner Hottie wrote: Kagura Nikon wrote: Amyclas Amatin wrote: Remember that no matter how unfun things become for the players, daddy will make us do it. And we will, because we love our family very very much. More than we actually love the game itself. That is your problem... not ccp's Actually, it will become everyone's problem, including CCP's. Unfun and broken mechanics must be exploited. All mechanics will be exploited eventually. The current proposal allows it to be used by everyone. By that virtue everyone has a valid and equally valued viewpoint on this. If you and your allies can finally achieve your 'end game' with this, I am okay with that. If you maximize it over everyone else, I am okay with that too. Because it is something I can also use. Limiting the changes and excluding anyone or any strategy is not a fair system. I have a hunch that phase III will be a boon to those who persevered through phase II...
Nasar Vyron S0utherN Comfort DARKNESS. 14	Posted - 2015.03.18 00:19:59 - [2058] - Quote That is the one good part about Dominion sov, it couldn't be flipped by missing a single day of timers and you had points of conflict which allowed for focused conflict to occur. I call it a mixed bag because it does offer some solutions to the problems. Such as making people think for themselves in smaller groups on a node. Decisions matter as to what you go after. But there are options available that can accomplish those same goals but better, even running along side their current plan that allows for all forms of game play to flourish. Ex: Why not make structures invulnerable until the RF is over, capturing a single command node removes that invulnerability allowing you to attack them and the more points taken by attacker, lower resistances that structure has. Command nodes can be flipped back and forth constantly until the structure is dead or the vulnerability has worn off. More nodes taken, the less firepower required to destroy the structure. Small gangs now quickly span out and take as many nodes as they can that are undefended to lower the resistances, then push for the ones that are or go straight in towards the structure itself. To prevent trolling from larger alliances yo only allow repping of the structure to occur once it's vulnerability stage is over. Meaning constant hit and run tactics will eventually destroy the structure. While a single blob will not work as you must always have control of at least 1 node to even apply damage. With that you have your importance of small skirmishes, but at the same time leaves a centralized point of focus for conflict to occur which is what the current null sov likes and what those who do not currently own sov like and would supposedly bring them over to the sov bill paying masses if they could. Look, I get that you feel everything should be open to attack easily. What you don't seem to get or care about is that, large or small, being expected to protect your borders and your inner sov at the same time every day is a near impossible task and WILL burn people out. Especially with the current value of null to the line members, it quickly becomes not worth the effort even for a small area of space. Walls must be allowed to be made to slow entry and to keep your people safe (in relation to sudden loss of all assets) who choose not to fight on the front lines 4 hours a day, 7 days a week. If you lived in null then you should know that coming back after a week vacation to find all your stuff is stuck in a station would be bullshit. Taking and losing sov should never ever ever be an over night/1 timer event. Far too much rides on it when this is a game, and such an important even make people even consider taking time off work for a game to insure their entertainment inst completely destroyed. And before you say it yes, I know stations are effectively 2 timers, but any station that enters free-port (stupidest idea ever put forth) will be forever hell camped until the final timer is done. So yes, your stuff is stuck.
Veskrashen Justified Chaos Spaceship Bebop 838	Posted - 2015.03.18 00:33:36 - [2059] - Quote Nasar Vyron wrote: Look, I get that you feel everything should be open to attack easily. What you don't seem to get or care about is that, large or small, being expected to protect your borders and your inner sov at the same time every day is a near impossible task and WILL burn people out. Especially with the current value of null to the line members, it quickly becomes not worth the effort even for a small area of space. Walls must be allowed to be made to slow entry and to keep your people safe (in relation to sudden loss of all assets) who choose not to fight on the front lines 4 hours a day, 7 days a week. If you lived in null then you should know that coming back after a week vacation to find all your stuff is stuck in a station would be bullshit. Taking and losing sov should never ever ever be an over night/1 timer event. Far too much rides on it when this is a game, and such an important event which makes people even consider taking time off work for a game to insure their entertainment isn't a good mechanic. And before you say it yes, I know stations are effectively 2 timers, but any station that enters free-port (stupidest idea ever put forth) will be forever hell camped until the final timer is done. So yes, your stuff is stuck. You're absolutely right - holding sov under this new system will be work, and it will be hard. It will be hard as hell to hold large areas of land, it will absolutely require folks to band together and figure out how to defend it. As I've stated before, there's a natural limit to how much area a given number of active pilots can police, given a certain level of pressure. Empires will expand and contract accordingly, depending on their will to fight and their level of organization. As far as having to defend for 4 hours per day, 7 days a week? Oh, poor little nullbear. My alliance had to defend 23.5/7 for weeks when TEST was around, and that was to hold a single damn chokepoint system. We logged in, killed, died, and skirmished for WEEKS on end. Our morale was never higher, we were never more psyched than when we were under that kind of pressure. It cemented who we are and made us some of the most deadly FW organizations in EVE. I understand if you folks, having become fat lazy and complacent hiding behind your EHP walls, supercap umbrellas, and reputation tanks might find the prospect of actually having to work to keep your space somewhat alarming. And the value of that system? Purely geographic. It gave us no income - as a State Protectorate station we couldn't even use the agents there. The only other reason was pride - and the desire to make the other side BLEED for every damn inch they tried to take. If nullbears need income to provide motivation... maybe your alliance could give out paplinks for defense fleet participation, pay bounties for killing invaders, SRP all defense fleet losses, etc. After all, they're getting all this mad moon goo and renter income - if it's your job as a line member to be fighting and dying to protect it, it's only fair you get a share, right? You all pick the time of day you're vulnerable. You only really have to defend when you're being attacked. You get a nice little alliance-wide notification system to tell you exactly what's being attacked and when - something that should be easy to tie into your extensive coalition IT services to allow folks to respond accordingly. And as long as you use your space, you've got a good 20+ minutes before you have to even have your first Entosis Link boat on scene... something that should be easy enough to accomplish for the mad scientists who came up with Trollceptors. You're not under a massive burden here. And hey - if it's too hard to handle, shrink the space you actively defend until it's more manageable. Problem solved. We Gallente have a saying: "CCP created the Gallente Militia to train the Fighters..."
Yroc Jannseen Enlightened Industries Goonswarm Federation 82	Posted - 2015.03.18 00:36:48 - [2060] - Quote Veskrashen wrote: Nasar Vyron wrote: Look, I get that you feel everything should be open to attack easily. What you don't seem to get or care about is that, large or small, being expected to protect your borders and your inner sov at the same time every day is a near impossible task and WILL burn people out. Especially with the current value of null to the line members, it quickly becomes not worth the effort even for a small area of space. Walls must be allowed to be made to slow entry and to keep your people safe (in relation to sudden loss of all assets) who choose not to fight on the front lines 4 hours a day, 7 days a week. If you lived in null then you should know that coming back after a week vacation to find all your stuff is stuck in a station would be bullshit. Taking and losing sov should never ever ever be an over night/1 timer event. Far too much rides on it when this is a game, and such an important event which makes people even consider taking time off work for a game to insure their entertainment isn't a good mechanic. And before you say it yes, I know stations are effectively 2 timers, but any station that enters free-port (stupidest idea ever put forth) will be forever hell camped until the final timer is done. So yes, your stuff is stuck. You're absolutely right - holding sov under this new system will be work, and it will be hard. It will be hard as hell to hold large areas of land, it will absolutely require folks to band together and figure out how to defend it. As I've stated before, there's a natural limit to how much area a given number of active pilots can police, given a certain level of pressure. Empires will expand and contract accordingly, depending on their will to fight and their level of organization. As far as having to defend for 4 hours per day, 7 days a week? Oh, poor little nullbear. My alliance had to defend 23.5/7 for weeks when TEST was around, and that was to hold a single damn chokepoint system. We logged in, killed, died, and skirmished for WEEKS on end. Our morale was never higher, we were never more psyched than when we were under that kind of pressure. It cemented who we are and made us some of the most deadly FW organizations in EVE. I understand if you folks, having become fat lazy and complacent hiding behind your EHP walls, supercap umbrellas, and reputation tanks might find the prospect of actually having to work to keep your space somewhat alarming. And the value of that system? Purely geographic. It gave us no income - as a State Protectorate station we couldn't even use the agents there. The only other reason was pride - and the desire to make the other side BLEED for every damn inch they tried to take. If nullbears need income to provide motivation... maybe your alliance could give out paplinks for defense fleet participation, pay bounties for killing invaders, SRP all defense fleet losses, etc. After all, they're getting all this mad moon goo and renter income - if it's your job as a line member to be fighting and dying to protect it, it's only fair you get a share, right? You all pick the time of day you're vulnerable. You only really have to defend when you're being attacked. You get a nice little alliance-wide notification system to tell you exactly what's being attacked and when - something that should be easy to tie into your extensive coalition IT services to allow folks to respond accordingly. And as long as you use your space, you've got a good 20+ minutes before you have to even have your first Entosis Link boat on scene... something that should be easy enough to accomplish for the mad scientists who came up with Trollceptors. You're not under a massive burden here. And hey - if it's too hard to handle, shrink the space you actively defend until it's more manageable. Problem solved. And people say we take the game too seriously.

Veskrashen Justified Chaos Spaceship Bebop 838	Posted - 2015.03.18 00:38:39 - [2061] - Quote Yroc Jannseen wrote: And people say we take the game too seriously. The comparative level of commitment is why I generally refer to your kind as pansy a**ed risk averse lazy nullbears. Sack up and fight for your space, or lose it. Choice is yours. We Gallente have a saying: "CCP created the Gallente Militia to train the Fighters..."
Nasar Vyron S0utherN Comfort DARKNESS. 14	Posted - 2015.03.18 00:52:02 - [2062] - Quote Veskrashen wrote: Yroc Jannseen wrote: And people say we take the game too seriously. The comparative level of commitment is why I generally refer to your kind as pansy a**ed risk averse lazy nullbears. Sack up and fight for your space, or lose it. Choice is yours. You kept saying you lived in null. I question how much or how much commitment you ever really put in before you moved to where you are now. Saying the people of null have such a low level of commitment is such ignorance I'm literally done talking with you. You are so glazed over by your low sec, FW view of null players that it's pointless to try and have a conversation with you. Just.. I'm done. Don't worry tho, null sec players are the cancer of this game. We have no intention of making this game better for all even tho we are the ones bored out of our minds out here.
vilya novacat McKenna Shipyards Goonswarm Federation 14	Posted - 2015.03.18 00:52:35 - [2063] - Quote Overall the new system seems decent. BUT. Sovereignty (TCU) should be a 24 hour long tug of war constellation wide, with occupancy usage being a force multiplier for the defender. IHUBs should be at the sun and have a pile of hitpoints for each installed service that are vulnerable on a set 4 hour window, and a dominion style fight-invulnerable24hrwait-fight on the IHUB itself. This would let you choose to kill certain services anytime, or the whole thing in 2 fights. Stations should have your entosis link thing but limit the fights to just the station's system.
Veskrashen Justified Chaos Spaceship Bebop 838	Posted - 2015.03.18 01:07:10 - [2064] - Quote Nasar Vyron wrote: You kept saying you lived in null. I question how much or how much commitment you ever really put in before you moved to where you are now. Most of 2004-2008. Spent a good long while gearing up for the drone expansion, dropped an outpost, ran an alliance for about 6 months. So.. a fair bit, I'd say. Nasar Vyron wrote: Saying the people of null have such a low level of commitment is such ignorance I'm literally done talking with you. You are so glazed over by your low sec, FW view of null players that it's pointless to try and have a conversation with you. Actually I don't doubt that there are incredibly dedicated Nullsec pilots. Bloc level FCs, the entire Gewn logistics backbone (the GSOL presentations are always epic, props to those guys), etc etc etc. But when the average line member is defined primarily by AFK ratting, alting in FW / incursions, or play DOTA2 while waiting for a rage ping? Yeah - the average null line member has minimal commitment. At the moment, the burdens of securing sov nullsec and making it livable are carried by a small fraction of the nullsec population, so that the average line member never has to deal with any of the hassles outside of stratops. And, given things like the B0TLRD Accords and the like, line members in large sov nullsec coalitions don't even have to worry about THAT outside of lolz. That's exactly what's causing that level of boredom, stagnation and frustration in nullsec these days - the lack of any driver to be in space, doing things in nullsec. There's no existential threat, taking more space is pointless - and would be a mindnumbing grind for folks who are already on the edge of unsubbing. Where the nullblocs craft peace treaties to make sure the small minority that actually do the work of sov nullsec don't burn the hell out, where they engineer game preserves like Catch and Providence to amuse the masses. Implement Fozziesov, though... suddenly there's an existential NEED for pilots to be active. In space. For hours, day in and day out. There's TARGETS that can be hit, that can cause real damage and real impact to people living in nullsec - that DON'T require a bloc level FC and dozens of supercaps to take a run at. There's ways for individual line members, acting on their own initiative, to have a real impact on not only the safety and security of their own space, but potentially causing significant chaos and carnage elsewhere on the map. That's what Fozziesov is intended to do. To give you reasons to be active, to be in space, to be online - to not be playing DOTA or running incursions on your alt while waiting for a ping. To make the line members and residents of nullsec actually start shouldering part of the burden of planting and keeping your flag in nullsec. To spread the load, so that alliances don't live and die by the efforts of a small cadre of clinically insane neckbeards. That's why I say that FW pilots - at least those in corps who live and fight out of FW warzone stations - have a comparatively higher level of commitment. Because they can't rely on a small cadre of folks to keep all the fires put out while they screw around elsewhere. Because it does take the regular, day in and day out efforts of entire corps and alliances to keep control of the warzone, to fight back the incursions, to earn their place on the map. That's what I want to see in nullsec - sovholding alliances who are there not because of how many supercaps they own, or how many neckbeards they have hammering away at IT tools, but because the overwhelming majority of their memberbase is out there day in and day out earning the right to be there. We Gallente have a saying: "CCP created the Gallente Militia to train the Fighters..."
Miner Hottie Valar Morghulis. Goonswarm Federation 108	Posted - 2015.03.18 01:11:34 - [2065] - Quote Veskrashen wrote: Yroc Jannseen wrote: And people say we take the game too seriously. The comparative level of commitment is why I generally refer to your kind as pansy a**ed risk averse lazy nullbears. Sack up and fight for your space, or lose it. Choice is yours. Spoken by someone who has all their other ships safely docked in an unconquerable NPC low sec station. No bubbles, no sov flips. Wow. You are willfully ignorant of any risk beyond that of the ship you fly this moment. Your arguments are similarly narrow minded. It's all about how hot my mining lasers get.
Veskrashen Justified Chaos Spaceship Bebop 838	Posted - 2015.03.18 01:18:37 - [2066] - Quote Miner Hottie wrote: Veskrashen wrote: Yroc Jannseen wrote: And people say we take the game too seriously. The comparative level of commitment is why I generally refer to your kind as pansy a**ed risk averse lazy nullbears. Sack up and fight for your space, or lose it. Choice is yours. Spoken by someone who has all their other ships safely docked in an unconquerable NPC low sec station. No bubbles, no sov flips. Wow. You are willfully ignorant of any risk beyond that of the ship you fly this moment. Your arguments are similarly narrow minded. 1. I put a whole lot more on the line on a regular basis than you do, sweetie. Or, as was so often the refrain in times of old... Post With Your Main. 2. You're in the largest coalition in the game, who has signed peace agreements with every single entity who could possibly threaten your sov or put you in a position of losing your assets. You and your coalition are the last folks in this game who should be talking about having anything at risk. Your Dear Leader has essentially metagamed all the risk out of the game, for you. 3. I hope beyond hope that Entosis Links get implemented as currently proposed and a plague of Trollceptors descends to lock you out of whatever station you call home. Then, and only then, may you come back on these forums and talk as if you have anything to lose in a sov war. We Gallente have a saying: "CCP created the Gallente Militia to train the Fighters..."
Miner Hottie Valar Morghulis. Goonswarm Federation 108	Posted - 2015.03.18 01:25:54 - [2067] - Quote Wanda Fayne wrote: Miner Hottie wrote: Kagura Nikon wrote: Amyclas Amatin wrote: Remember that no matter how unfun things become for the players, daddy will make us do it. And we will, because we love our family very very much. More than we actually love the game itself. That is your problem... not ccp's Actually, it will become everyone's problem, including CCP's. Unfun and broken mechanics must be exploited. All mechanics will be exploited eventually. The current proposal allows it to be used by everyone. By that virtue everyone has a valid and equally valued viewpoint on this. If you and your allies can finally achieve your 'end game' with this, I am okay with that. If you maximize it over everyone else, I am okay with that too. Because it is something I can also use. Limiting the changes and excluding anyone or any strategy is not a fair system. I have a hunch that phase III will be a boon to those who persevered through phase II... I don't think you understand what I am saying, the broken mechanism is the link itself via making sov attakcs essentially commitment free, especially once you get beyond the 1 v 1 sov fights. Currently sov fights tend to be a series of fights over each system at different times until someones will breaks and then it's a sov grind. Under fozziesov that goes away. We goons can attack sov accross a region in one go. Fleets of us burning null sec down. It will be glorious and we will feast on tears no matter how boring and bad the actual gameplay is. It's all about how hot my mining lasers get.
Veskrashen Justified Chaos Spaceship Bebop 839	Posted - 2015.03.18 01:32:40 - [2068] - Quote Miner Hottie wrote: I don't think you understand what I am saying, the broken mechanism is the link itself via making sov attakcs essentially commitment free, especially once you get beyond the 1 v 1 sov fights. Currently sov fights tend to be a series of fights over each system at different times until someones will breaks and then it's a sov grind. Under fozziesov that goes away. We goons can attack sov accross a region in one go. Fleets of us burning null sec down. It will be glorious and we will feast on tears no matter how boring and bad the actual gameplay is. I don't think you understand, the whole point of Fozziesov is to make sov attacks "commitment free" by design, by lowering the bar for conducting such attacks to essentially zero. So long as you're willing to commit to putting whatever ship you're flying on the line for 2+X or 5+X minutes at a time, you too can harass sov. So, if your complaint is that it makes attacking sov easy, then... mission accomplished, I guess? We Gallente have a saying: "CCP created the Gallente Militia to train the Fighters..."
Miner Hottie Valar Morghulis. Goonswarm Federation 108	Posted - 2015.03.18 01:40:37 - [2069] - Quote Veskrashen wrote: Miner Hottie wrote: Veskrashen wrote: Yroc Jannseen wrote: And people say we take the game too seriously. The comparative level of commitment is why I generally refer to your kind as pansy a**ed risk averse lazy nullbears. Sack up and fight for your space, or lose it. Choice is yours. Spoken by someone who has all their other ships safely docked in an unconquerable NPC low sec station. No bubbles, no sov flips. Wow. You are willfully ignorant of any risk beyond that of the ship you fly this moment. Your arguments are similarly narrow minded. 1. I put a whole lot more on the line on a regular basis than you do, sweetie. Or, as was so often the refrain in times of old... Post With Your Main. 2. You're in the largest coalition in the game, who has signed peace agreements with every single entity who could possibly threaten your sov or put you in a position of losing your assets. You and your coalition are the last folks in this game who should be talking about having anything at risk. Your Dear Leader has essentially metagamed all the risk out of the game, for you. 3. I hope beyond hope that Entosis Links get implemented as currently proposed and a plague of Trollceptors descends to lock you out of whatever station you call home. Then, and only then, may you come back on these forums and talk as if you have anything to lose in a sov war. This my main son and I have fought sov wars with all my assets in space and on the line as part of the EHP wall and spent all my isk buying capitals to hold on to that sov and to win so don't patronise me from your stinking low sec hovel, polishing your epeen killboard because you killed a cfc megathron with a billion isk loki or some similar rubbish. The only alliance we had a peace deal with is PL. Last time they tried invade us they got smashed at the VFK headshot and that was the last anyone heard from bmerc. Right now we are fighting N3 for Fountain I reckon that constitutes assets at risk. Also, we never made peace with N3 and they threaten our sov... As to point 3 we don't want the halitosis link on inties because we know what we will do with them. What you do with it is your business, but your woeful understanding of sov today shines through to anyone who lives in sov and hence why I think you should go back to low sec and polish your billion isk loki or whatever and leave sov to those that can and do live their. It's all about how hot my mining lasers get.
Gallowmere Rorschach Enlightened Industries Goonswarm Federation 939	Posted - 2015.03.18 02:21:11 - [2070] - Quote Veskrashen wrote: Miner Hottie wrote: I don't think you understand what I am saying, the broken mechanism is the link itself via making sov attakcs essentially commitment free, especially once you get beyond the 1 v 1 sov fights. Currently sov fights tend to be a series of fights over each system at different times until someones will breaks and then it's a sov grind. Under fozziesov that goes away. We goons can attack sov accross a region in one go. Fleets of us burning null sec down. It will be glorious and we will feast on tears no matter how boring and bad the actual gameplay is. I don't think you understand, the whole point of Fozziesov is to make sov attacks "commitment free" by design, by lowering the bar for conducting such attacks to essentially zero. So long as you're willing to commit to putting whatever ship you're flying on the line for 2+X or 5+X minutes at a time, you too can harass sov. So, if your complaint is that it makes attacking sov easy, then... mission accomplished, I guess? That's the hilarious part. Let's say we do one day grow tired of dealing with Trollceptors if they aren't prevented somehow. Let's say we just decide to say screw it, drop Deklein, Tenal, Fountain, etc., and go hole up in Syndicate, Venal, randomlowsecwhatever. You now have thousands of bitter, disillusioned refugees, with trillions of ISK to burn, and nothing better to do than roll around all of nullsec in Trollceptors. Trust me, it's not the CFC who will ultimately suffer under this ridiculous system. It doesn't do away with n+1. It just makes the numbers game even more skewed in our favor than it already is. It's okay though. Keep believing that this is a good idea.

Veskrashen Justified Chaos Spaceship Bebop 840	Posted - 2015.03.18 02:32:36 - [2071] - Quote Gallowmere Rorschach wrote: That's the hilarious part. Let's say we do one day grow tired of dealing with Trollceptors if they aren't prevented somehow. Let's say we just decide to say screw it, drop Deklein, Tenal, Fountain, etc., and go hole up in Syndicate, Venal, randomlowsecwhatever. You now have thousands of bitter, disillusioned refugees, with trillions of ISK to burn, and nothing better to do than roll around all of nullsec in Trollceptors. Trust me, it's not the CFC who will ultimately suffer under this ridiculous system. It doesn't do away with n+1. It just makes the numbers game even more skewed in our favor than it already is. It's okay though. Keep believing that this is a good idea. So... you won't have been able to hold sov, so you drop sov then you troll sov, making sure that folks who hold sov actually defend their sov? Sounds like a good deal to me. And, if you think this doesn't do away with N+1, you don't understand the concept at all. Having 1000 Trollceptors with zero tank and no rep capability on the same field as 500 guys in Gilas / Eagles / Tengus / whatever the FOTM anti-frig fit is and you'll see that it's no longer about pure numbers alone. But hey, go ahead and keep believing that anyone who is actually interested in keeping their sov and has half a brain is in any way deterred by the idea of hordes of 100mil+ isk killmails being delivered to their doorstep on a daily basis. We Gallente have a saying: "CCP created the Gallente Militia to train the Fighters..."
Gallowmere Rorschach Enlightened Industries Goonswarm Federation 940	Posted - 2015.03.18 02:54:24 - [2072] - Quote Veskrashen wrote: So... you won't have been able to hold sov, so you drop sov then you troll sov, making sure that folks who hold sov actually defend their sov? Sounds like a good deal to me. And, if you think this doesn't do away with N+1, you don't understand the concept at all. Having 1000 Trollceptors with zero tank and no rep capability on the same field as 500 guys in Gilas / Eagles / Tengus / whatever the FOTM anti-frig fit is and you'll see that it's no longer about pure numbers alone. But hey, go ahead and keep believing that anyone who is actually interested in keeping their sov and has half a brain is in any way deterred by the idea of hordes of 100mil+ isk killmails being delivered to their doorstep on a daily basis. Like I said, just keep on believing. Never stop. I honestly hope you're right. I firmly believe that it's a terrible idea and that in due time, you'll be shown why. The only way anyone could possibly believe that this isn't a prime example of poor foresight, is if they are someone who believes that "anything is better than what we have now". We've seen where that line of thinking went before.
Veskrashen Justified Chaos Spaceship Bebop 840	Posted - 2015.03.18 03:00:30 - [2073] - Quote Gallowmere Rorschach wrote: Veskrashen wrote: So... you won't have been able to hold sov, so you drop sov then you troll sov, making sure that folks who hold sov actually defend their sov? Sounds like a good deal to me. And, if you think this doesn't do away with N+1, you don't understand the concept at all. Having 1000 Trollceptors with zero tank and no rep capability on the same field as 500 guys in Gilas / Eagles / Tengus / whatever the FOTM anti-frig fit is and you'll see that it's no longer about pure numbers alone. But hey, go ahead and keep believing that anyone who is actually interested in keeping their sov and has half a brain is in any way deterred by the idea of hordes of 100mil+ isk killmails being delivered to their doorstep on a daily basis. Like I said, just keep on believing. Never stop. I honestly hope you're right. I firmly believe that it's a terrible idea and that in due time, you'll be shown why. The only way anyone could possibly believe that this isn't a prime example of poor foresight, is if they are someone who believes that "anything is better than what we have now". We've seen where that line of thinking went before. And I firmly believe that anyone with half a brain are more than able to murder tankless Interceptors that can't warp for 2-5 minutes at a time. Anyone who continues to believe that somehow Trollceptors are a serious threat to sov or will accomplish anything at all against someone who is actively defending their sov is beyond me. But hey, we're taught to think and act independently in FW. I know ya'll do things differently out there in nullbear land... We Gallente have a saying: "CCP created the Gallente Militia to train the Fighters..."
Alavaria Fera GoonWaffe 6657	Posted - 2015.03.18 03:08:36 - [2074] - Quote Veskrashen wrote: And, if you think this doesn't do away with N+1, you don't understand the concept at all. Having 1000 Trollceptors with zero tank and no rep capability on the same field as 500 guys in Gilas / Eagles / Tengus / whatever the FOTM anti-frig fit is and you'll see that it's no longer about pure numbers alone. Stawmannnnnnn ^^ 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 840	Posted - 2015.03.18 03:14:01 - [2075] - Quote Alavaria Fera wrote: Stawmannnnnnn You mean like150+ pages of TROLLLCEPPPTOOOOOR in 2 different threads and a TMC post? We Gallente have a saying: "CCP created the Gallente Militia to train the Fighters..."
Gallowmere Rorschach Enlightened Industries Goonswarm Federation 940	Posted - 2015.03.18 03:19:20 - [2076] - Quote Veskrashen wrote: Alavaria Fera wrote: Stawmannnnnnn You mean like150+ pages of TROLLLCEPPPTOOOOOR in 2 different threads and a TMC post? To be fair, I pointed them out, primarily because they have been the "omgwtf" thought since this whole idea came to light. I don't actually believe that they will be the threat that they are made out to be. Not because they aren't annoying (they will be, if actually used properly), but because there is a certain class of broken ship right now that could prove far more useful at this kind of role than a trollceptor. Granted, it's facing a few minor nerfs of it's own in the coming patch, but nothing that will prevent it from being used in a very similar manner. No, I am not talking about the damned Ishtar, for once.
Miner Hottie Valar Morghulis. Goonswarm Federation 111	Posted - 2015.03.18 03:21:42 - [2077] - Quote Veskrashen wrote: Gallowmere Rorschach wrote: That's the hilarious part. Let's say we do one day grow tired of dealing with Trollceptors if they aren't prevented somehow. Let's say we just decide to say screw it, drop Deklein, Tenal, Fountain, etc., and go hole up in Syndicate, Venal, randomlowsecwhatever. You now have thousands of bitter, disillusioned refugees, with trillions of ISK to burn, and nothing better to do than roll around all of nullsec in Trollceptors. Trust me, it's not the CFC who will ultimately suffer under this ridiculous system. It doesn't do away with n+1. It just makes the numbers game even more skewed in our favor than it already is. It's okay though. Keep believing that this is a good idea. So... you won't have been able to hold sov, so you drop sov then you troll sov, making sure that folks who hold sov actually defend their sov? Sounds like a good deal to me. And, if you think this doesn't do away with N+1, you don't understand the concept at all. Having 1000 Trollceptors with zero tank and no rep capability on the same field as 500 guys in Gilas / Eagles / Tengus / whatever the FOTM anti-frig fit is and you'll see that it's no longer about pure numbers alone. But hey, go ahead and keep believing that anyone who is actually interested in keeping their sov and has half a brain is in any way deterred by the idea of hordes of 100mil+ isk killmails being delivered to their doorstep on a daily basis. I said it before, your views are too narrow. Under fozziesov we can burn all of nullsec and we will if the system is too skewed to attack which it is. If some one turtles up and defies us we wil just apply more force until they crumble. It's all about how hot my mining lasers get.
Wanda Fayne Gurlz with Gunz 60	Posted - 2015.03.18 03:27:46 - [2078] - Quote Miner Hottie wrote: I don't think you understand what I am saying, the broken mechanism is the link itself via making sov attakcs essentially commitment free, especially once you get beyond the 1 v 1 sov fights. Currently sov fights tend to be a series of fights over each system at different times until someones will breaks and then it's a sov grind. Under fozziesov that goes away. We goons can attack sov accross a region in one go. Fleets of us burning null sec down. It will be glorious and we will feast on tears no matter how boring and bad the actual gameplay is. Have you ever seen a forest after a fire burns it to the ground? It is blacken'ed and charred like a nuke went off. And then, like magic, new vibrant growth. None of those grow in the old forest, the trees have long since eliminated everything else that competes. Sometimes you just gotta let it all burn. edit. bees much prefer the regrowth anyway:)
Veskrashen Justified Chaos Spaceship Bebop 841	Posted - 2015.03.18 03:28:37 - [2079] - Quote Miner Hottie wrote: I said it before, your views are too narrow. Under fozziesov we can burn all of nullsec and we will if the system is too skewed to attack which it is. If some one turtles up and defies us we wil just apply more force until they crumble. And like I've said before, no Trollceptor will ever make a single structure vulnerable in any space actively occupied by an appropriately sized competent group. You will not burn a single thing that's defended. We Gallente have a saying: "CCP created the Gallente Militia to train the Fighters..."
Miner Hottie Valar Morghulis. Goonswarm Federation 111	Posted - 2015.03.18 04:09:17 - [2080] - Quote Wanda Fayne wrote: Miner Hottie wrote: I don't think you understand what I am saying, the broken mechanism is the link itself via making sov attakcs essentially commitment free, especially once you get beyond the 1 v 1 sov fights. Currently sov fights tend to be a series of fights over each system at different times until someones will breaks and then it's a sov grind. Under fozziesov that goes away. We goons can attack sov accross a region in one go. Fleets of us burning null sec down. It will be glorious and we will feast on tears no matter how boring and bad the actual gameplay is. Have you ever seen a forest after a fire burns it to the ground? It is blacken'ed and charred like a nuke went off. And then, like magic, new vibrant growth. None of those grow in the old forest, the trees have long since eliminated everything else that competes. Sometimes you just gotta let it all burn. edit. bees much prefer the regrowth anyway:) As a proud member of the AUTZ I live bushfires every year and it can take a decade for the bush to properly recover and that is Australian eucalyptus which is adapted to being burnt. It's all about how hot my mining lasers get.

Veskrashen Justified Chaos Spaceship Bebop 841	Posted - 2015.03.18 04:14:25 - [2081] - Quote Miner Hottie wrote: As a proud member of the AUTZ I live bushfires every year and it can take a decade for the bush to properly recover and that is Australian eucalyptus which is adapted to being burnt. Fortunately a few short months after Phase 2 sets null on fire and burns it to the ground, and a hundred little groups plant their flag in the now worthless space, Phase 3 drops and makes all the work of holding Fozziesov worth it again - and the wars begin anew. It's almost like CCP's new 6 week development cycle allows them to rapidly roll out new systems and mechanics and thereby keep things from stagnating like they did in the past. Who'da thunk it? We Gallente have a saying: "CCP created the Gallente Militia to train the Fighters..."
Miner Hottie Valar Morghulis. Goonswarm Federation 111	Posted - 2015.03.18 04:25:26 - [2082] - Quote Veskrashen wrote: Miner Hottie wrote: As a proud member of the AUTZ I live bushfires every year and it can take a decade for the bush to properly recover and that is Australian eucalyptus which is adapted to being burnt. Fortunately a few short months after Phase 2 sets null on fire and burns it to the ground, and a hundred little groups plant their flag in the now worthless space, Phase 3 drops and makes all the work of holding Fozziesov worth it again - and the wars begin anew. It's almost like CCP's new 6 week development cycle allows them to rapidly roll out new systems and mechanics and thereby keep things from stagnating like they did in the past. Who'da thunk it? No you *****, I am saying using forest fires as an analogy is really bad. It's all about how hot my mining lasers get.
Wanda Fayne Gurlz with Gunz 60	Posted - 2015.03.18 04:50:25 - [2083] - Quote Miner Hottie wrote: Veskrashen wrote: Miner Hottie wrote: As a proud member of the AUTZ I live bushfires every year and it can take a decade for the bush to properly recover and that is Australian eucalyptus which is adapted to being burnt. Fortunately a few short months after Phase 2 sets null on fire and burns it to the ground, and a hundred little groups plant their flag in the now worthless space, Phase 3 drops and makes all the work of holding Fozziesov worth it again - and the wars begin anew. It's almost like CCP's new 6 week development cycle allows them to rapidly roll out new systems and mechanics and thereby keep things from stagnating like they did in the past. Who'da thunk it? No you *****, I am saying using forest fires as an analogy is really bad. It's bad if you are the lumber company, I suppose. Otherwise it is necessary for the health of an ecosystem. I think the analogy is applicable to Eve. And CCP seems determined to give everyone a torch.
Miner Hottie Valar Morghulis. Goonswarm Federation 112	Posted - 2015.03.18 05:04:38 - [2084] - Quote Veskrashen wrote: Miner Hottie wrote: I said it before, your views are too narrow. Under fozziesov we can burn all of nullsec and we will if the system is too skewed to attack which it is. If some one turtles up and defies us we wil just apply more force until they crumble. And like I've said before, no Trollceptor will ever make a single structure vulnerable in any space actively occupied by an appropriately sized competent group. You will not burn a single thing that's defended. Competence, will, skill and ability melts in the face of your bubble wrapped station and pos, with 150 domis standing ready to blap you. Nulli couldn't stop us deadzoning their staging system. What makes you think you or anyone else will do better? Troll ceptors will roll most sov, the leftovers will be given the above treatment. It might not happen straight away, but 3000 odd null sec systems to burn do take a little bit of time. You have to get out of this narrow, simplistic 1 v 1 or general small gang epeen polishing warfare exercise and think big. See the possibilities; fozziesov is like pouring petrol over all of new enden and handing everyone, including the neighbourhood gang of sociopaths a box of matches and then expecting everyone to just light small fire's to keep them warm. Some us just want to see the world burn and who cares who gets hurt. It's all about how hot my mining lasers get.
Wanda Fayne Gurlz with Gunz 60	Posted - 2015.03.18 05:13:54 - [2085] - Quote Miner Hottie wrote: You have to get out of this narrow, simplistic 1 v 1 or general small gang epeen polishing warfare exercise and think big. See the possibilities; fozziesov is like pouring petrol over all of new enden and handing everyone, including the neighbourhood gang of sociopaths a box of matches and then expecting everyone to just light small fire's to keep them warm. Some us just want to see the world burn and who cares who gets hurt. I'll bring the marshmallows (and an entosis laser) Don't build what you can't afford to lose?
Miner Hottie Valar Morghulis. Goonswarm Federation 112	Posted - 2015.03.18 05:44:06 - [2086] - Quote Wanda Fayne wrote: Miner Hottie wrote: You have to get out of this narrow, simplistic 1 v 1 or general small gang epeen polishing warfare exercise and think big. See the possibilities; fozziesov is like pouring petrol over all of new enden and handing everyone, including the neighbourhood gang of sociopaths a box of matches and then expecting everyone to just light small fire's to keep them warm. Some us just want to see the world burn and who cares who gets hurt. I'll bring the marshmallows (and an entosis laser) Don't build what you can't afford to lose? Don't hold sov if goons can take it off you. It's all about how hot my mining lasers get.
Kristian Hackett Alpha Republic - Transcenders of Space and Time Solyaris Chtonium 51	Posted - 2015.03.18 06:22:54 - [2087] - Quote Miner Hottie wrote: I said it before, your views are too narrow. Under fozziesov we can burn all of nullsec and we will if the system is too skewed to attack which it is. If some one turtles up and defies us we wil just apply more force until they crumble. So essentially, what you're saying is that CCP's goals of load balancing the servers here is basically going to go out the window because GSF is going to bring the full brunt of its military might down upon anyone willing to take a stand. Well, CCP Fozzie, you heard 'em. So much for your hopes of load balancing across the constellation, the mischievous player base is still going to smash your servers to bits. Bring on the TiDi! Aircraft Maintenance - Using a high school diploma to fix what a college degree just f**ed up. "Life is too short to drink cheap beer."*
Alavaria Fera GoonWaffe 6657	Posted - 2015.03.18 06:25:07 - [2088] - Quote Miner Hottie wrote: Wanda Fayne wrote: Miner Hottie wrote: You have to get out of this narrow, simplistic 1 v 1 or general small gang epeen polishing warfare exercise and think big. See the possibilities; fozziesov is like pouring petrol over all of new enden and handing everyone, including the neighbourhood gang of sociopaths a box of matches and then expecting everyone to just light small fire's to keep them warm. Some us just want to see the world burn and who cares who gets hurt. I'll bring the marshmallows (and an entosis laser) Don't build what you can't afford to lose? Don't hold sov if goons can take it off you. No wonder why massadeath will be the one to end us they don't have any sov. (Or perhaps PL? They hold moons... and no sov so) ^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears. Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
Celesae Clan Shadow Wolf Fatal Ascension 32	Posted - 2015.03.18 06:42:59 - [2089] - Quote Speedkermit Damo wrote: Personally I no longer bother doing any PvE whatsoever anymore because the experience is so unbearable. I'd rather pay real money and sell a plex every few months to avoid any PvE. Sounds like CCP's nerfs have things working as intended. Quite honestly, I see a lot of changes as having "trickle-down" effects resulting in that.
Miner Hottie Valar Morghulis. Goonswarm Federation 112	Posted - 2015.03.18 06:51:47 - [2090] - Quote Kristian Hackett wrote: Miner Hottie wrote: I said it before, your views are too narrow. Under fozziesov we can burn all of nullsec and we will if the system is too skewed to attack which it is. If some one turtles up and defies us we wil just apply more force until they crumble. So essentially, what you're saying is that CCP's goals of load balancing the servers here is basically going to go out the window because GSF is going to bring the full brunt of its military might down upon anyone willing to take a stand. Well, CCP Fozzie, you heard 'em. So much for your hopes of load balancing across the constellation, the mischievous player base is still going to smash your servers to bits. Bring on the TiDi! Let us all have a moments silence for the hamster of CCP It's all about how hot my mining lasers get.

Amyclas Amatin SUNDERING Goonswarm Federation 671	Posted - 2015.03.18 08:43:18 - [2091] - Quote Veskrashen wrote: Miner Hottie wrote: I said it before, your views are too narrow. Under fozziesov we can burn all of nullsec and we will if the system is too skewed to attack which it is. If some one turtles up and defies us we wil just apply more force until they crumble. And like I've said before, no Trollceptor will ever make a single structure vulnerable in any space actively occupied by an appropriately sized competent group. You will not burn a single thing that's defended. I think GSF has too many people too. Phoebe Freeport republic has just the right density, and should be the model for which all nullsec alliances are built on. 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?"
Kagura Nikon Mentally Assured Destruction The Pursuit of Happiness 2024	Posted - 2015.03.18 09:46:13 - [2092] - Quote vilya novacat wrote: Overall the new system seems decent. BUT. Sovereignty (TCU) should be a 24 hour long tug of war constellation wide, with occupancy usage being a force multiplier for the defender. IHUBs should be at the sun and have a pile of hitpoints for each installed service that are vulnerable on a set 4 hour window, and a dominion style fight-invulnerable24hrwait-fight on the IHUB itself. This would let you choose to kill certain services anytime, or the whole thing in 2 fights. Stations should have your entosis link thing but limit the fights to just the station's system. Please no, not fight in the sun. It hurts your eyes to stay too long near those stupid glowing balls. "If brute force does not solve your problem.... then you are surely not using enough!" For the rest hire PoH \| Recruitment
Speedkermit Damo Demonic Retribution The Initiative. 423	Posted - 2015.03.18 10:41:07 - [2093] - Quote Nasar Vyron wrote: Speedkermit Damo wrote: Zhul Chembull wrote: Gorski Car wrote: There are so many things you can do to counter trollceptors I cant help but think that this is a vocal minority overreacting and creating doomsday scenarios. Not at all it has been logically explained for all to see. I do not want to chase around nano fleets that can burn through bubbles during my 4 hours. Not fun. On the other hand make them used on any other than an interceptor or covert ops and I'm fine. In other words, nothing that has a chance of getting past the insta-lock gatecamps you guys want to use to lock down your space. What exactly is the problem with that? You want to get into a country you have to get past customs and border patrol first. WHs are your Coyotes, use them! Ceptors and covert cloaks allow players to subvert nearly all defenses but the perfect defense: smart bombing battleships. I get so excited just Imagining 4 hours of sitting on all entry gates smart bombing as a small gang sits around to catch anyone who manged to get past via wormholes. Yes, fun was had by all as we sit tabbed out into another game as mine and other's alts effectively closed off all traffic for 4 hours a day. OR You could make the attacker actually fly something that gave the defender a variety of options to counter and be countered - creating actual content that forced people to put forth effort and planning when handling issues related to SOV. Erm no, You blue donut types, don't want to have a variety of options. What you really want is to hermatically seal your rental empires with a few insta-lock gatecamps, while the rest of your pilots are free to own swathes of sov you neither need or use. Protect me from knowing what I don't need to know. Protect me from even knowing that there are things to know that I don't know. Protect me from knowing that I decided not to know about the things that I decided not to know about. Amen.
Veskrashen Justified Chaos Spaceship Bebop 845	Posted - 2015.03.18 10:53:17 - [2094] - Quote Miner Hottie wrote: Competence, will, skill and ability melts in the face of your bubble wrapped station and pos, with 150 domis standing ready to blap you. Nulli couldn't stop us deadzoning their staging system. What makes you think you or anyone else will do better? Troll ceptors will roll most sov, the leftovers will be given the above treatment. It might not happen straight away, but 3000 odd null sec systems to burn do take a little bit of time. You have to get out of this narrow, simplistic 1 v 1 or general small gang epeen polishing warfare exercise and think big. See the possibilities; fozziesov is like pouring petrol over all of new enden and handing everyone, including the neighbourhood gang of sociopaths a box of matches and then expecting everyone to just light small fire's to keep them warm. Some us just want to see the world burn and who cares who gets hurt. So... what you're saying is that if you lock the defenders in their station with a big honking fleet so they can't respond, then Trollceptors are an unstoppable force that will burn all in their path? Huh. Looks like it take someone preventing the defender's response to make them work "properly". And what's to stop that alliance from just popping out in their own Trollceptors and counter-linking you? Besides, I think Fozziesov is basically expecting everyone to light the whole world on fire and seeing what comes out of the ashes. Your insistence that everyone else wants to see things nice and stable - and doesn't just want to burn everything down right beside you - is fairly narrow minded IMO. We Gallente have a saying: "CCP created the Gallente Militia to train the Fighters..."
Speedkermit Damo Demonic Retribution The Initiative. 424	Posted - 2015.03.18 11:36:09 - [2095] - Quote Miner Hottie wrote: Veskrashen wrote: Gallowmere Rorschach wrote: That's the hilarious part. Let's say we do one day grow tired of dealing with Trollceptors if they aren't prevented somehow. Let's say we just decide to say screw it, drop Deklein, Tenal, Fountain, etc., and go hole up in Syndicate, Venal, randomlowsecwhatever. You now have thousands of bitter, disillusioned refugees, with trillions of ISK to burn, and nothing better to do than roll around all of nullsec in Trollceptors. Trust me, it's not the CFC who will ultimately suffer under this ridiculous system. It doesn't do away with n+1. It just makes the numbers game even more skewed in our favor than it already is. It's okay though. Keep believing that this is a good idea. So... you won't have been able to hold sov, so you drop sov then you troll sov, making sure that folks who hold sov actually defend their sov? Sounds like a good deal to me. And, if you think this doesn't do away with N+1, you don't understand the concept at all. Having 1000 Trollceptors with zero tank and no rep capability on the same field as 500 guys in Gilas / Eagles / Tengus / whatever the FOTM anti-frig fit is and you'll see that it's no longer about pure numbers alone. But hey, go ahead and keep believing that anyone who is actually interested in keeping their sov and has half a brain is in any way deterred by the idea of hordes of 100mil+ isk killmails being delivered to their doorstep on a daily basis. I said it before, your views are too narrow. Under fozziesov we can burn all of nullsec and we will if the system is too skewed to attack which it is. If some one turtles up and defies us we wil just apply more force until they crumble. Sounds like a good deal for you then, so why the constant snivelling? Protect me from knowing what I don't need to know. Protect me from even knowing that there are things to know that I don't know. Protect me from knowing that I decided not to know about the things that I decided not to know about. Amen.
Miner Hottie Valar Morghulis. Goonswarm Federation 113	Posted - 2015.03.18 11:39:47 - [2096] - Quote Veskrashen wrote: Miner Hottie wrote: Competence, will, skill and ability melts in the face of your bubble wrapped station and pos, with 150 domis standing ready to blap you. Nulli couldn't stop us deadzoning their staging system. What makes you think you or anyone else will do better? Troll ceptors will roll most sov, the leftovers will be given the above treatment. It might not happen straight away, but 3000 odd null sec systems to burn do take a little bit of time. You have to get out of this narrow, simplistic 1 v 1 or general small gang epeen polishing warfare exercise and think big. See the possibilities; fozziesov is like pouring petrol over all of new enden and handing everyone, including the neighbourhood gang of sociopaths a box of matches and then expecting everyone to just light small fire's to keep them warm. Some us just want to see the world burn and who cares who gets hurt. So... what you're saying is that if you lock the defenders in their station with a big honking fleet so they can't respond, then Trollceptors are an unstoppable force that will burn all in their path? Huh. Looks like it take someone preventing the defender's response to make them work "properly". And what's to stop that alliance from just popping out in their own Trollceptors and counter-linking you? Besides, I think Fozziesov is basically expecting everyone to light the whole world on fire and seeing what comes out of the ashes. Your insistence that everyone else wants to see things nice and stable - and doesn't just want to burn everything down right beside you - is fairly narrow minded IMO. Err no Fozziesov is a big rainbow melange of pathetic FW rubbish with a side of wh stupid in which little groups gather once a day to fend off the hordes from the gates of their hovel system/constellation before returning to their homes to do wtf ever. What Fozzie wants is tug of wars over sov and little fights to have meaning. Which is pathetic, but hey some people love and excel at snall gang and get prissy when I don't give them no respect so they whine like a dog in heat and we get the abomination we have here. Fozziesov a grab bag of every small gang losers wet dreams rolled into one, fights on demand for them: delayed local so they can more easily polish their epeen ganking ratters and miners and the ability to stick it to the man cause too much ehp makes smallgang loser nash and wail and grind their teeth. So little that elite pvp can do to so mucb ehp. Sad face for them. But I digress. As for what I said, you again think to small and narrow, its the blinkers from fighting on such a small and little horizon that is by definition small gang warfare. When we hell camped Nulli we destoyed interdiction nullified tengus and inties. Stack enough remote sebos on a keres piloted by a dude in london with fiber optic and he can tackle an inty. You just don't seem to get we will be rollling fleets of troll ceptors. One group may resist for a bit, but we will grind them down. Any tactic they can use, we can too and we can put 10 times the number of pilots on a grid if we realky want to ruin someones day. Dominion sov had an EHP wall that we could not concur, the wall was too high. Remove that and malcannis law still applies and we have a lot of old players to complement our baby bees. It's all about how hot my mining lasers get.
Gallowmere Rorschach Enlightened Industries Goonswarm Federation 944	Posted - 2015.03.18 12:00:23 - [2097] - Quote Speedkermit Damo wrote: Sounds like a good deal for you then, so why the constant snivelling? It's not so much sniveling. We've been over this, time and again. Even before I was in GSF, I saw the pattern in Eve's history. Step 1: CCP offers something stupid that Goons can abuse in hilarious ways. Step 2: Goons warn that it's a stupid idea that will ultimately give us a ridiculous advantage. Step 3: "Lol, look at all Goon tears huehuehue." Step 4: CCP implements it anyway. Step 5: Goons abuse the hell out of the new system for a significant advantage. Step 6: Either quick hotfixes or "working as intended". Step 7: Where Eve is today.
Ereilian Mythic Inc Gentlemen's.Parlor 75	Posted - 2015.03.18 13:17:51 - [2098] - Quote Veskrashen wrote: Miner Hottie wrote: As a proud member of the AUTZ I live bushfires every year and it can take a decade for the bush to properly recover and that is Australian eucalyptus which is adapted to being burnt. Fortunately a few short months after Phase 2 sets null on fire and burns it to the ground, and a hundred little groups plant their flag in the now worthless space, Phase 3 drops and makes all the work of holding Fozziesov worth it again - and the wars begin anew. It's almost like CCP's new 6 week development cycle allows them to rapidly roll out new systems and mechanics and thereby keep things from stagnating like they did in the past. Who'da thunk it? I chuckle when I read your posts. Were you home schooled or something? Real life gives a perfect example of why your arguements are false. I am the School Bully, you are a weedy first grader and I want your dinner money. For what reason? Because I can and there is damn all you can do about it. Nothing is going to burn, except maybe Massadeath's pride when he fail to be relevant. The major alliances are as close as you can get to friends despite the ingame hurf derp and they all have too much invested to allow it to burn. Sure you might see some regions become unstable (Fountain/Delve, P Fall, Catch) but I would put serious money on the major blocks going into turtle mode. Why am I going to come **** with you? Cause I can and there is nothing you can do about it. TrollSov '15.
Wanda Fayne Gurlz with Gunz 62	Posted - 2015.03.18 14:00:12 - [2099] - Quote Miner Hottie wrote: [stuff] . so, basically 1. FW rubbish 2. WH stupid 3. Small gang warfare losers, pathetic 4. Ganking for epeen 5. we can tackle inties 6. blobs of pilots, we win 7. EHP wall is good Did I miss anything? I would have expected a jab at hisec carebears, too...
Veskrashen Justified Chaos Spaceship Bebop 848	Posted - 2015.03.18 14:39:00 - [2100] - Quote Ereilian wrote: Nothing is going to burn, except maybe Massadeath's pride when he fail to be relevant. The major alliances are as close as you can get to friends despite the ingame hurf derp and they all have too much invested to allow it to burn. Sure you might see some regions become unstable (Fountain/Delve, P Fall, Catch) but I would put serious money on the major blocks going into turtle mode. Why am I going to come **** with you? Cause I can and there is nothing you can do about it. TrollSov '15. I'm betting there's a large segment of the EVE population that has an interest in burning the current stagnant null to the ground, but have been unable to make an impact due to EHP Walls of Doom. Those are the folks you need to worry about, not your breast buddies in B0TLRD that are too gutless to take on big challenges. We know that the big blocs have no interest in fighting to destabilizing the status quo. That's why we're happy that a Fozziesov system that allows us to screw with your space is coming, that negates the need to be in a big bloc in order to impact the holdings of a big bloc. Troll away. I'm certain that there are plenty of folks who are looking to troll you in return. In fact, for Gevlon and his crusade, this seems like a golden opportunity. Offer RF bounties to folks who RF structures in Ebil CFC space, and bigger bounties to those who cause iHubs / TCUs to go boom. Seems like low barrier of entry + built up resentment + isk rewards could cause just as much havoc if not more than paying Marmites. We Gallente have a saying: "CCP created the Gallente Militia to train the Fighters..."

Speedkermit Damo Demonic Retribution The Initiative. 424	Posted - 2015.03.18 17:22:58 - [2101] - Quote Gallowmere Rorschach wrote: Speedkermit Damo wrote: Sounds like a good deal for you then, so why the constant snivelling? It's not so much sniveling. We've been over this, time and again. Even before I was in GSF, I saw the pattern in Eve's history. Step 1: CCP offers something stupid that Goons can abuse in hilarious ways. Step 2: Goons warn that it's a stupid idea that will ultimately give us a ridiculous advantage. Step 3: "Lol, look at all Goon tears huehuehue." Step 4: CCP implements it anyway. Step 5: Goons abuse the hell out of the new system for a significant advantage. Step 6: Either quick hotfixes or "working as intended". Step 7: Where Eve is today. Whatever system CCP introduces Goons and just about everyone else will abuse the hell out of it. the reason dominion is broken is because you all abused the hell out of it, and CCP stood by and let it happen. I remember you guys saying much the same when CCP introduced siphons. You goons threatened to siphon every POS in New Eden. How did that work out for you? It's just empty threats Protect me from knowing what I don't need to know. Protect me from even knowing that there are things to know that I don't know. Protect me from knowing that I decided not to know about the things that I decided not to know about. Amen.
Powers Sa 1389	Posted - 2015.03.18 18:21:32 - [2102] - Quote Speedkermit Damo wrote: NPC null is going to become prime real estate. If it wasn't optimal now, you wouldn't be living there. Do you like winning t2 frigs and dictors for Dirt Cheap?https://eveninggames.net/register/ref/dQddmNgyLhFBqNJk Remeber: Gambling addiction is no laughing matter unless you've lost a vast space fortune on the internet.
Alp Khan GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 313	Posted - 2015.03.18 18:32:31 - [2103] - Quote Veskrashen wrote: Miner Hottie wrote: I said it before, your views are too narrow. Under fozziesov we can burn all of nullsec and we will if the system is too skewed to attack which it is. If some one turtles up and defies us we wil just apply more force until they crumble. And like I've said before, no Trollceptor will ever make a single structure vulnerable in any space actively occupied by an appropriately sized competent group. You will not burn a single thing that's defended. It doesn't matter if they make a structure vulnerable. I personally can see that you are trying to bring this as a justification for trollceptors, even though what is broken with them is not some perfect/near always ability to make structures vulnerable. I think you comprehend this perfectly well yourself, but choosing to deceive readers because you personally intend to abuse this no-commitment, no-risk trolling method. It has been said countless times before, and I'll repeat it again, so that your deception will be futile. Interceptor with an entosis link cannot be stopped at any gatecamp. It also cannot be tackled and killed on a structure grid even when his entosis link is active, perhaps except in the case another agility interceptor manages to scram it somehow. No-warp while entosis link doesn't change anything, after burning 400-500km the trollceptor will have broken out of the structure grid. But even if somehow ends up being killed, it's a cheap ship with cheap modules. Just let your empty pod get killed and jump into another trollceptor at your staging station. It is just a no-risk, no-commitment trolling device that will allow just about anyone who can fly an interceptor and fit an entosis link to grief any sov-holder at zero or near zero cost. You really need to stop acting as if everyone contributing under this thread is dumb and they will be swayed by your persistent attempts to get a certain fact unnoticed.
Veskrashen Justified Chaos Spaceship Bebop 848	Posted - 2015.03.18 18:42:22 - [2104] - Quote Alp Khan wrote: Interceptor with an entosis link cannot be stopped at any gatecamp. Working as intended, then. Quote: It also cannot be tackled and killed on a structure grid even when his entosis link is active, perhaps except in the case another agility interceptor manages to scram it somehow. At least one counter exists, then. Quote: No-warp while entosis link doesn't change anything after burning 400-500km the trollceptor will have broken out of the structure grid. Sure it does, it means the Trollceptor can't disengage while it's active, giving me up to 2-5 minutes to pin it down and kill it. Ya'll also put a lot of faith in grid-fu in the age of combat probes on overpropped T3 destroyers. Not to mention your Trollceptor's not going to be able to cover 400-500km unmolested if the defender is at all competent. Quote: But even if somehow ends up being killed.. OP SUCCESS! Quote: ...it's a cheap ship with cheap modules. Just let your empty pod get killed and jump into another trollceptor at your staging station. Yup, comes down to attrition and resupply issues. And, at 100mil a pop for the T2 linked version, it beats the hell out of chasing sub-2 mil isk stabbed farmer alts. I'll hunt those tasty 100mil isk killmails any day of the week in comparison, especially if they come to my doorstep. We Gallente have a saying: "CCP created the Gallente Militia to train the Fighters..."
Alp Khan GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 313	Posted - 2015.03.18 18:44:46 - [2105] - Quote Veskrashen wrote: Mind you, this doesn't prevent you from shaping the field of battle per se. Erecting bubbleinstalock camps at strategic chokepoints forces an attacker to make choices - do they bash their way in by force of arms, do they infiltrate via WHs, or do they blow past the blockade in nigh uncatchable Trollceptors? That choice, in turn, defines the tactical problem the defenders need to solve. A brute force assault lends itself to pitched battles, WH infiltration means contain and burn them out, Trollceptors mean breaking out the pipebombs and Snaked Linked Faction Fitted solo junkies incentivised by bounties posted by your alliance. This is just one example of your deceitful posting under any thread related with Entosis module ship balance. No trollceptor is going to be caught on a bubble instalock gatecamp due to ability to insta-warp. No amount of pipebombing will be able to catch a trollceptor if the pilot has a pulse and bounces his warps. No snaked linked faction fitted solo junkie is going to catch a trollceptor in some mythical fashion, and even if it could, that is a near billion ISK fit against a a trollceptor that is going to cost 100M ISK tops. Now, this sort of deception either takes place because you don't know game mechanics very well, or you are in a small and not so resourceful group that was never able to field in either DPS, numbers, organization, and the strategy to contest a sov holder living in his space and you intend to use this opportunity to continuously troll what you can't take, hold and maintain. And I personally think that you know the mechanics all too well (as can be understood through your obvious gate camping experience in lowsec), but you are deceitful and manipulative because you intend to personally exploit the insta-warp high speed interceptor+entosis module combination.
Veskrashen Justified Chaos Spaceship Bebop 848	Posted - 2015.03.18 18:47:31 - [2106] - Quote Alp Khan wrote: It is just a no-risk, no-commitment trolling device that will allow just about anyone who can fly an interceptor and fit an entosis link to grief any sov-holder at zero or near zero cost. Part of the whole point of Fozziesov and this module is to lower the barrier to entry for sov harassment to the point where literally anyone with an axe to grind in the entire New Eden cluster is now able to harass sov holders of any size - as opposed to being locked out of the game because they don't have supercap dominance. Alp Khan wrote: You really need to stop acting as if everyone contributing under this thread is dumb and they will be swayed by your persistent attempts to get a certain fact unnoticed. What fact? I fully agree that Trollceptors are excellent ways to penetrate defended sov space and harass sov holders, with the very real ability to impact sov holdings if the defender is incompetent or unable to respond. I also fully agree that they've got massive potential for trolling the hell out of sov holders that are incompetent, inactive, or too large to properly defend their space. I also doubt they'll be an issue for active, competent defenders. Gewns keep claiming they won't have an issue dealing with them even while claiming they have no counter, for instance. What I disagree with the poor poor widdle Gewns on is that I believe it is absolutely critical to allow Entosis Links on Interceptors for the sole purpose of providing a cheap, accessible, fast, platform that can travel quickly and easily evade bubbleinstalockhelldeathgatecamps, for the sole purpose of allowing essentially anyone to contest sov anywhere with minimal barriers to entry. We Gallente have a saying: "CCP created the Gallente Militia to train the Fighters..."
Powers Sa 1391	Posted - 2015.03.18 19:06:53 - [2107] - Quote Veskrashen wrote: Gewns keep claiming they won't have an issue dealing with them even while claiming they have no counter, for instance. Consequence requires commitment. Do you like winning t2 frigs and dictors for Dirt Cheap?https://eveninggames.net/register/ref/dQddmNgyLhFBqNJk Remeber: Gambling addiction is no laughing matter unless you've lost a vast space fortune on the internet.
Alp Khan GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 313	Posted - 2015.03.18 19:07:42 - [2108] - Quote Veskrashen wrote: Alp Khan wrote: It is just a no-risk, no-commitment trolling device that will allow just about anyone who can fly an interceptor and fit an entosis link to grief any sov-holder at zero or near zero cost. Part of the whole point of Fozziesov and this module is to lower the barrier to entry for sov harassment to the point where literally anyone with an axe to grind in the entire New Eden cluster is now able to harass sov holders of any size - as opposed to being locked out of the game because they don't have supercap dominance. Alp Khan wrote: You really need to stop acting as if everyone contributing under this thread is dumb and they will be swayed by your persistent attempts to get a certain fact unnoticed. What fact? I fully agree that Trollceptors are excellent ways to penetrate defended sov space and harass sov holders, with the very real ability to impact sov holdings if the defender is incompetent or unable to respond. I also fully agree that they've got massive potential for trolling the hell out of sov holders that are incompetent, inactive, or too large to properly defend their space. I also doubt they'll be an issue for active, competent defenders. Gewns keep claiming they won't have an issue dealing with them even while claiming they have no counter, for instance. What I disagree with the poor poor widdle Gewns on is that I believe it is absolutely critical to allow Entosis Links on Interceptors for the sole purpose of providing a cheap, accessible, fast, platform that can travel quickly and easily evade bubbleinstalockhelldeathgatecamps, for the sole purpose of allowing essentially anyone to contest sov anywhere with minimal barriers to entry. The fact (that you again, unsuccessfully are trying to hide from the reader) is even if the defender is competent and is able to respond, trollceptor will just burn away and break grid in most of the cases, and even if it somehow magically gets caught (because it sure as well is not going to get caught in ANY gatecamp) it's just a throw-away, cheap ship. You reword your posts to make the reader believe into trollceptor can be countered to manipulate his opinion. Again, this shows that you treat the readers following the posts as idiots who won't see through someone lying out of his teeth. The problem is not about barrier to entry, the problem is that this sort of shortsightedness brings a no-commitment and no-risk ability to troll any sovereignty holder. I don't think anyone looks kindly upon this sort of manipulation and deception, aimed at saving an obviously broken combination such as the trollceptor by someone who is hoping to exploit such a broken mechanic post-patch.
Alp Khan GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 313	Posted - 2015.03.18 19:17:42 - [2109] - Quote Veskrashen wrote: Nasar Vyron wrote: CCP deciding that the skirmish warfare and being able to hit enemies constantly from behind their own borders is the end all be all of sov warfare does not belong in a sandbox. I'm not saying small scale skirmishes don't belong, because it does and it does happen. But sov is very delicate mechanic, and people's desire to just screw with something so important so easily and without the need for commitment DOES NOT BELONG IN THIS GAME. You seem to forget that it's CCP's sandbox you're playing in, son. They decide the rules of the game, not you. And quite frankly, since CCP is looking at the health of the ENTIRE game, not just catering to the nullbear blocs who whine when anyone threatens their little apple cart, perhaps one might sit back and think about how limiting sov warfare to massive supercap blobs might be killing the game as a whole. You've already alluded to nullbears who spend most of their time alting on FW or incursion alts - what happens when they suddenly have to be active in their "real" homes? How does that impact all the other areas of the game, how does that improve the health of EVE as a whole? You have no right to demand the sandbox be tailored to your needs. Finally, Gewns screaming about other people being able to screw with their sov games without commitment or consequence has to be one of the richest damn pieces of irony ever committed to print. Quelle surprise, the low-sec gangbanger that never had numbers, competence, commitment and the organization and never tried to accumulate any of those seems to be thinking this: "CCP is here to follow my demands for me to be able to contest sovereignty without committing anything and taking a risk". And he clearly admits that he would love to avoid committing anything, but still being able to partake in sovereignty warfare by flying a trollceptor without any risk of getting caught and countered. I don't think you are playing the right game if you seriously expect your demands of entitlement will be met and fed to your risk averse mouth with a silver spoon.
Alp Khan GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 313	Posted - 2015.03.18 19:26:59 - [2110] - Quote Wanda Fayne wrote: Miner Hottie wrote: Kagura Nikon wrote: Amyclas Amatin wrote: Remember that no matter how unfun things become for the players, daddy will make us do it. And we will, because we love our family very very much. More than we actually love the game itself. That is your problem... not ccp's Actually, it will become everyone's problem, including CCP's. Unfun and broken mechanics must be exploited. All mechanics will be exploited eventually. The current proposal allows it to be used by everyone. By that virtue everyone has a valid and equally valued viewpoint on this. If you and your allies can finally achieve your 'end game' with this, I am okay with that. If you maximize it over everyone else, I am okay with that too. Because it is something I can also use. Limiting the changes and excluding anyone or any strategy is not a fair system. I have a hunch that phase III will be a boon to those who persevered through phase II... With that logic (if one can call it so somehow), let's get various POS bawling expoits, all POS duping exploits, FW forex LP exploit back into the game too along with fozzietrollceptors! Because anyone can use those exploits, and that alone justifies their existence, according to your... well... extraordinarily special mind.

Alp Khan GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 313	Posted - 2015.03.18 19:33:14 - [2111] - Quote Alavaria Fera wrote: Veskrashen wrote: And, if you think this doesn't do away with N+1, you don't understand the concept at all. Having 1000 Trollceptors with zero tank and no rep capability on the same field as 500 guys in Gilas / Eagles / Tengus / whatever the FOTM anti-frig fit is and you'll see that it's no longer about pure numbers alone. Stawmannnnnnn It's not just he is using logical fallacies including that straw man you called out. It's also that he already admitted to looking forward to exploit a broken combination like a trollceptor which will allow him to buzz around in an uncatchable ship and troll sov holders. He wants this exploit to be ignored by the developers. Therefore, he resorts to deception and manipulation.
Ypsilas Suonen Science and Trade Institute Caldari State 5	Posted - 2015.03.18 19:53:20 - [2112] - Quote I'm not much of a theorycrafter, but since the thread title includes 'Entosis Link' and 'Ship Balance', I will just throw out the one thing that is bugging me about the Phase II devblog as it relates to the OP. CCP Fozzie wrote: The optimal strategy for fighting over a location with the Entosis Link should be to gain effective control of the grid. The Entosis Link itself should have the minimum possible effect on what ships and tactics players can choose. The restrictions and penalties on the Entosis Link should be as simple and understandable as possible. Based on the guidelines above, and the bulk of the discussion in this thread, the key hurdle with the initial proposal as i see it is this: Quote: Low fitting requirements, uses high power slot. Depending on how one defines 'low fitting requirements', this stipulation more or less forms the crux of the assumptions about interceptors deployed solely in a griefing capacity. My thoughts are thus: Since the pilot is using the ship's processing power to brute force an embedded electronic security apparatus, with experimental and poorly-understood tech no less, the CPU requirement should reflect the extraordinary nature of the module. However, in keeping with the 'minimum effect' and 'simple as possible' conditions above, artificial ship restrictions and any gimmicks on top of the basic mechanics are to be avoided. To my thinking, consider a change to the above quote to read '120 tf CPU requirement, uses a low power slot'. I realize there may be no precedent for a targeted active module occupying the low rack, but this is an extremely niche case, one that affects structures and not ships. What's more important, occupying the low rack reduces the ability to use fitting modules such as co-processors to circumvent the module's fitting cost, as well and speed and agility modules to enhance ability to disengage at will. This combination of CPU amount (similar to a cov-ops cloak) and low power occupancy allows most ships, including interceptors, to fit the module without the need for an artificial Class restriction, but should hamper the ability of these small ships to be much more than a button-sitting dummy. Would this push the module into a more acceptable space?
Alavaria Fera GoonWaffe 6666	Posted - 2015.03.18 21:18:23 - [2113] - Quote Alp Khan wrote: Alavaria Fera wrote: Veskrashen wrote: And, if you think this doesn't do away with N+1, you don't understand the concept at all. Having 1000 Trollceptors with zero tank and no rep capability on the same field as 500 guys in Gilas / Eagles / Tengus / whatever the FOTM anti-frig fit is and you'll see that it's no longer about pure numbers alone. Stawmannnnnnn It's not just he is using logical fallacies including that straw man you called out. It's also that he already admitted to looking forward to exploit a broken combination like a trollceptor which will allow him to buzz around in an uncatchable ship and troll sov holders. He wants this exploit to be ignored by the developers. Therefore, he resorts to deception and manipulation. Yes, it's obviously the case. You can't both believe it's a useless trick but also be fantasizing about ending our 0.0dream with it, one must be a spin tactic, and of course we know CCP both wants to believe it's not going to be a problem, but will be used to legit end our 0.0 nightmare. ^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears. Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
Wanda Fayne Gurlz with Gunz 64	Posted - 2015.03.18 22:38:19 - [2114] - Quote Alp Khan wrote: Wanda Fayne wrote: All mechanics will be exploited eventually. The current proposal allows it to be used by everyone. By that virtue everyone has a valid and equally valued viewpoint on this. If you and your allies can finally achieve your 'end game' with this, I am okay with that. If you maximize it over everyone else, I am okay with that too. Because it is something I can also use. Limiting the changes and excluding anyone or any strategy is not a fair system. I have a hunch that phase III will be a boon to those who persevered through phase II... With that logic (if one can call it so somehow), let's get various POS bawling expoits, all POS duping exploits, FW forex LP exploit back into the game too along with fozzietrollceptors! Because anyone can use those exploits, and that alone justifies their existence, according to your... well... extraordinarily special mind. Your reading comprehension needs work. Read what I wrote.
Miner Hottie Valar Morghulis. Goonswarm Federation 118	Posted - 2015.03.18 23:13:10 - [2115] - Quote Wanda Fayne wrote: Miner Hottie wrote: [stuff] . so, basically 1. FW rubbish 2. WH stupid 3. Small gang warfare losers, pathetic 4. Ganking for epeen 5. we can tackle inties 6. blobs of pilots, we win 7. EHP wall is good Did I miss anything? I would have expected a jab at hisec carebears, too... Apart from the risk and reward inbalance of hi sec income vs null sec income which is more of an issue to discuss in the other threads there isn't much that hi sec can contribute here. Plus I don't see Fozziesov coming with our own version of concord to protect our assets, ratters and miners (wouldn't your average small gang roaming ganker hate that ). Point I was making was so much of what Fozziesov does is provide those that hated the big null coalitions with everything they have demanded from this game, you know Stuff proposed mostly in the comments section on EN24. Because these anti social losers could never match the average alliances numbers and the EHP of dominion sov, they demanded the removal of fleet warps and local and limit fleet size and then there was the thing they hated most and that was friends, limit blue lists. Very few alliances stand alone in space they all have mates of some kind. Funny thing is, if these losers were to band together then surely their elite pvp skills would allow them to defeat the F1 monkey's? It's all about how hot my mining lasers get.
Wanda Fayne Gurlz with Gunz 64	Posted - 2015.03.19 00:08:12 - [2116] - Quote Miner Hottie Apart from the risk and reward inbalance of hi sec income vs null sec income which is more of an issue to discuss in the other threads there isn't much that hi sec can contribute here. Plus I don't see Fozziesov coming with our own version of concord to protect our assets, ratters and miners (wouldn't your average small gang roaming ganker hate that [:twisted wrote: ). Point I was making was so much of what Fozziesov does is provide those that hated the big null coalitions with everything they have demanded from this game, you know Stuff proposed mostly in the comments section on EN24. Because these anti social losers could never match the average alliances numbers and the EHP of dominion sov, they demanded the removal of fleet warps and local and limit fleet size and then there was the thing they hated most and that was friends, limit blue lists. Very few alliances stand alone in space they all have mates of some kind. Funny thing is, if these losers were to band together then surely their elite pvp skills would allow them to defeat the F1 monkey's? I get the point. In fact I get many the points made in this thread. Really the only thing I truly argue is that everyone has an equal right to speak about these changes. Whatever your playstyle or location in the game, this will affect you. Many will take the opportunity offered by CCP to get involved, provided the mechanics allow it. Calling them all 'losers' just makes you look defensive, btw. It doesn't matter if these are good/bad for ME personally, I welcome the new opportunities offered. And I will adapt. Do whatever you wish to with the changes. The game will only get more interesting.
Miner Hottie Valar Morghulis. Goonswarm Federation 119	Posted - 2015.03.19 01:09:57 - [2117] - Quote Wanda Fayne wrote: Miner Hottie Apart from the risk and reward inbalance of hi sec income vs null sec income which is more of an issue to discuss in the other threads there isn't much that hi sec can contribute here. Plus I don't see Fozziesov coming with our own version of concord to protect our assets, ratters and miners (wouldn't your average small gang roaming ganker hate that [:twisted wrote: ). Point I was making was so much of what Fozziesov does is provide those that hated the big null coalitions with everything they have demanded from this game, you know Stuff proposed mostly in the comments section on EN24. Because these anti social losers could never match the average alliances numbers and the EHP of dominion sov, they demanded the removal of fleet warps and local and limit fleet size and then there was the thing they hated most and that was friends, limit blue lists. Very few alliances stand alone in space they all have mates of some kind. Funny thing is, if these losers were to band together then surely their elite pvp skills would allow them to defeat the F1 monkey's? I get the point. In fact I get many the points made in this thread. Really the only thing I truly argue is that everyone has an equal right to speak about these changes. Whatever your playstyle or location in the game, this will affect you. Many will take the opportunity offered by CCP to get involved, provided the mechanics allow it. Calling them all 'losers' just makes you look defensive, btw. It doesn't matter if these are good/bad for ME personally, I welcome the new opportunities offered. And I will adapt. Do whatever you wish to with the changes. The game will only get more interesting. Small gang losers often make exactly the same judgement on me when they accuse me of being an F1 monkey and then demand we have our gameplay style limited CCP. No one in null sec has every asked for small gang warfare to be limited in anyway. Much of my irritation is with a certain small gang worshipper saying this change is all good and he will feast on troll ceptor killmails. His astounding inability to get the point is that he limits his horizon to himself. Myself like all the other goons here see the real problems, the bigger picture, with the current design of fozziesov: firstly there is no meaningful commitment by an attacker, anyone who has fought goons know we love the idea of cheap tactics (our Celestis fleets were rolled gold sources of tears from PL/N3 slowcats), secondly under dominion sov and then phoebe jump changes we had a pretty hard limit on what we could conquer and hold. What we can hold may or may not change post fozziesov, but what we can conquer is now only limited by our time and everyone elses commitment. We can conceivably burn all of null sec now and we will try and if we succeed too easily it wont be a blue donut its will be the north west and a wasteland. That isn't good for the game at all. Null generates the news stories for CCP, lets hope the news isnt "CCP changes game mechanic and ruins 1/3 of space". It's all about how hot my mining lasers get.
Aiyshimin Fistful of Finns Triumvirate. 478	Posted - 2015.03.19 05:28:22 - [2118] - Quote Thats by far the most narrow-minded and self-centred post on these forums, ever. If you think that toxic prejudice, empty threats and baseless chest-beating if will make anyone take your misguided opinions seriously, think again. CCP isn't your mom who gives you everything when you cry and throw a tantrum.
Miner Hottie Valar Morghulis. Goonswarm Federation 122	Posted - 2015.03.19 06:07:46 - [2119] - Quote Aiyshimin wrote: Thats by far the most narrow-minded and self-centred post on these forums, ever. If you think that toxic prejudice, empty threats and baseless chest-beating if will make anyone take your misguided opinions seriously, think again. CCP isn't your mom who gives you everything when you cry and throw a tantrum. Um accusing me of being narrow minded for encouraging a fellow player to see the bigger picture and look beyond themselves would seem to be counter intuitive, even if I am frustrated. I do want what is best for this game and I have my views which I advocate for. I play in the AUTZ, we are pretty close knit and fozziesov currently condemns us to 4/5ths or maybe 5/7ths participation in sov war, if we are lucky. Do you think I am "entitled" because I want to fight for and defend my sov with my alliance? I had beers with some fellow AUTZ players and the carebears from hisec and the wh denizens called it out as bullshit. Thats not me having a tantrum, that is everyone of us who lose 30 minutes everyday due to DT. If anyone in this game is overly entitled it isn't the AUTZ mate. As for chest beating and hollow threats, check Mittens twitter feed, I am just echoing what he said. I suspect we will end up with most of whats being proposed here and it wont be as good or fun as people think. It's all about how hot my mining lasers get.
Aiyshimin Fistful of Finns Triumvirate. 480	Posted - 2015.03.19 14:05:45 - [2120] - Quote Miner Hottie wrote: Aiyshimin wrote: Thats by far the most narrow-minded and self-centred post on these forums, ever. If you think that toxic prejudice, empty threats and baseless chest-beating if will make anyone take your misguided opinions seriously, think again. CCP isn't your mom who gives you everything when you cry and throw a tantrum. Um accusing me of being narrow minded for encouraging a fellow player to see the bigger picture and look beyond themselves would seem to be counter intuitive, even if I am frustrated. I do want what is best for this game and I have my views which I advocate for. I play in the AUTZ, we are pretty close knit and fozziesov currently condemns us to 4/5ths or maybe 5/7ths participation in sov war, if we are lucky. Do you think I am "entitled" because I want to fight for and defend my sov with my alliance? I had beers with some fellow AUTZ players and the carebears from hisec and the wh denizens called it out as bullshit. Thats not me having a tantrum, that is everyone of us who lose 30 minutes everyday due to DT. If anyone in this game is overly entitled it isn't the AUTZ mate. As for chest beating and hollow threats, check Mittens twitter feed, I am just echoing what he said. I suspect we will end up with most of whats being proposed here and it wont be as good or fun as people think. You don't see the big picture, and definitely can't look beyond yourself. You can't even write about anything else than you. I don't give a **** about some random nerd's twatter feed, but it's quite adorable that you're just parroting someone else and don't even feel bad about it.

Alavaria Fera GoonWaffe 6674	Posted - 2015.03.19 22:03:30 - [2121] - Quote Miner Hottie wrote: What we can hold may or may not change post fozziesov, but what we can conquer is now only limited by our time and everyone elses commitment. We can conceivably burn all of null sec now and we will try and if we succeed too easily it wont be a blue donut its will be the north west and a wasteland. That isn't good for the game at all. Null generates the news stories for CCP, lets hope the news isnt "CCP changes game mechanic and ruins 1/3 of space". Nah, massadeath will end us There will only be wasteland ^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears. Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
Miner Hottie Valar Morghulis. Goonswarm Federation 122	Posted - 2015.03.19 23:18:50 - [2122] - Quote Aiyshimin wrote: Miner Hottie wrote: Aiyshimin wrote: Thats by far the most narrow-minded and self-centred post on these forums, ever. If you think that toxic prejudice, empty threats and baseless chest-beating if will make anyone take your misguided opinions seriously, think again. CCP isn't your mom who gives you everything when you cry and throw a tantrum. Um accusing me of being narrow minded for encouraging a fellow player to see the bigger picture and look beyond themselves would seem to be counter intuitive, even if I am frustrated. I do want what is best for this game and I have my views which I advocate for. I play in the AUTZ, we are pretty close knit and fozziesov currently condemns us to 4/5ths or maybe 5/7ths participation in sov war, if we are lucky. Do you think I am "entitled" because I want to fight for and defend my sov with my alliance? I had beers with some fellow AUTZ players and the carebears from hisec and the wh denizens called it out as bullshit. Thats not me having a tantrum, that is everyone of us who lose 30 minutes everyday due to DT. If anyone in this game is overly entitled it isn't the AUTZ mate. As for chest beating and hollow threats, check Mittens twitter feed, I am just echoing what he said. I suspect we will end up with most of whats being proposed here and it wont be as good or fun as people think. You don't see the big picture, and definitely can't look beyond yourself. You can't even write about anything else than you. I don't give a **** about some random nerd's twatter feed, but it's quite adorable that you're just parroting someone else and don't even feel bad about it. Thank you for adding nothing but your own putrid bitterness, bile and hatred to this thread. You weren't in one of thise tracking dreads we murdered in S-NJBB in Vale of thr Silent not long after phoebe delpoyed were you? All those tasty rattlesnake kills as well (I suppose the irony that most rattlesnake BPCs come from the CFC is lost on you). Anyway, you claim there is a bigger picture than I was thinking, what is it? Or is that statement as hollow as ny chest beating was to you? Dear leader the yoga loving nerd, myself and a good portion of the CFC has come to the conclusion these mechanics are broken and we will abuse them, will you do so to or will you come at me honorably in a battleship? Either way I most likely will be asleep or at work so I might only see you on the weekend. It's all about how hot my mining lasers get.
killin machine Virpio Boa Innovations Shadow of xXDEATHXx 0	Posted - 2015.03.20 00:02:18 - [2123] - Quote Bottom line, very disappointed with these changes: 1. Endless griefing by anyone with an entosis module and 5M isk ship. 2. End to upgrading systems in null sec. Why bother. 3. 4 hours a day of running around like children defending from endless griefing. 4. I only use the supercap once a month now, so perhaps it will be more useful if I reprocess it at this point. 5. Logistics from deep null to high sec will be non-existent. 6. No more stations will be dropped in null. 7. We used to play "Capture the Flag" in elementary school. Kinda got over that a long time ago. SOV decay is a great answer, but it appears as though we're committed to the entosis module. Sounds like it'll be a good year to move all my stuff to low sec and take a year off from Eve. We all had high hopes that a good mechanic could have been put in place, but this is extremely disappointing. Fly safe.
Axloth Okiah Future Corps Sleeper Social Club 599	Posted - 2015.03.20 10:04:12 - [2124] - Quote Regarding the "trollceptors", how about scaling the capture speed inversely to the current ship speed? So you could zip around fast to evade everyone, but it would make your progress much slower than if you were standing still. W-Space Realtor
Kagura Nikon Mentally Assured Destruction The Pursuit of Happiness 2024	Posted - 2015.03.20 11:25:37 - [2125] - Quote Miner Hottie wrote: Wanda Fayne wrote: Miner Hottie Apart from the risk and reward inbalance of hi sec income vs null sec income which is more of an issue to discuss in the other threads there isn't much that hi sec can contribute here. Plus I don't see Fozziesov coming with our own version of concord to protect our assets, ratters and miners (wouldn't your average small gang roaming ganker hate that [:twisted wrote: ). Point I was making was so much of what Fozziesov does is provide those that hated the big null coalitions with everything they have demanded from this game, you know Stuff proposed mostly in the comments section on EN24. Because these anti social losers could never match the average alliances numbers and the EHP of dominion sov, they demanded the removal of fleet warps and local and limit fleet size and then there was the thing they hated most and that was friends, limit blue lists. Very few alliances stand alone in space they all have mates of some kind. Funny thing is, if these losers were to band together then surely their elite pvp skills would allow them to defeat the F1 monkey's? I get the point. In fact I get many the points made in this thread. Really the only thing I truly argue is that everyone has an equal right to speak about these changes. Whatever your playstyle or location in the game, this will affect you. Many will take the opportunity offered by CCP to get involved, provided the mechanics allow it. Calling them all 'losers' just makes you look defensive, btw. It doesn't matter if these are good/bad for ME personally, I welcome the new opportunities offered. And I will adapt. Do whatever you wish to with the changes. The game will only get more interesting. Small gang losers often make exactly the same judgement on me when they accuse me of being an F1 monkey and then demand we have our gameplay style limited CCP. No one in null sec has every asked for small gang warfare to be limited in anyway. Much of my irritation is with a certain small gang worshipper saying this change is all good and he will feast on troll ceptor killmails. His astounding inability to get the point is that he limits his horizon to himself. Myself like all the other goons here see the real problems, the bigger picture, with the current design of fozziesov: firstly there is no meaningful commitment by an attacker, anyone who has fought goons know we love the idea of cheap tactics (our Celestis fleets were rolled gold sources of tears from PL/N3 slowcats), secondly under dominion sov and then phoebe jump changes we had a pretty hard limit on what we could conquer and hold. What we can hold may or may not change post fozziesov, but what we can conquer is now only limited by our time and everyone elses commitment. We can conceivably burn all of null sec now and we will try and if we succeed too easily it wont be a blue donut its will be the north west and a wasteland. That isn't good for the game at all. Null generates the news stories for CCP, lets hope the news isnt "CCP changes game mechanic and ruins 1/3 of space". Your style of game will NOT be removed! For god sake READ the damm dev blog. After the reinforced timer ends there will still be a time and place for the big fleet fights (although that will not be the ONLY available solution) This is NOT removing the large fleet gameplay, it is just creation of a new option and a new stage where small fleet combat will be predominant. "If brute force does not solve your problem.... then you are surely not using enough!" For the rest hire PoH \| Recruitment
Kagura Nikon Mentally Assured Destruction The Pursuit of Happiness 2024	Posted - 2015.03.20 11:26:57 - [2126] - Quote Axloth Okiah wrote: Regarding the "trollceptors", how about scaling the capture speed inversely to the current ship speed? So you could zip around fast to evade everyone, but it would make your progress much slower than if you were standing still. Too complex. Simples is to make SMALL ENTOSIS link (for frigates) be short range and slow. Medium entosis link be medium speed and range LARGE entosis link for battleships be long range and fast. HUGE entosis link for capitals, long range and VERY SLOW "If brute force does not solve your problem.... then you are surely not using enough!" For the rest hire PoH \| Recruitment
Wanda Fayne Gurlz with Gunz 64	Posted - 2015.03.20 14:14:01 - [2127] - Quote Alavaria Fera wrote: Miner Hottie wrote: What we can hold may or may not change post fozziesov, but what we can conquer is now only limited by our time and everyone elses commitment. We can conceivably burn all of null sec now and we will try and if we succeed too easily it wont be a blue donut its will be the north west and a wasteland. That isn't good for the game at all. Null generates the news stories for CCP, lets hope the news isnt "CCP changes game mechanic and ruins 1/3 of space". Nah, massadeath will end us There will only be wasteland I like the 'Mad Max' tone of that. It sounds...exciting...ominous...dangerous.
Miner Hottie Valar Morghulis. Goonswarm Federation 122	Posted - 2015.03.21 04:19:11 - [2128] - Quote Kagura Nikon wrote: Miner Hottie wrote: Wanda Fayne wrote: Miner Hottie Apart from the risk and reward inbalance of hi sec income vs null sec income which is more of an issue to discuss in the other threads there isn't much that hi sec can contribute here. Plus I don't see Fozziesov coming with our own version of concord to protect our assets, ratters and miners (wouldn't your average small gang roaming ganker hate that [:twisted wrote: ). Point I was making was so much of what Fozzieso does is provide those that hated the big null coalitions with everything they have demanded from this game, you know Stuff proposed mostly in the comments section on EN24. Because these anti social losers could never match the average alliances numbers and the EHP of dominion sov, they demanded the removal of fleet warps and local and limit fleet size and then there was the thing they hated most and that was friends, limit blue lists. Very few alliances stand alone in space they all have mates of some kind. Funny thing is, if these losers were to band together then surely their elite pvp skills would allow them to defeat the F1 monkey's? I get the point. In fact I get many the points made in this thread. Really the only thing I truly argue is that everyone has an equal right to speak about these changes. Whatever your playstyle or location in the game, this will affect you. Many will take the opportunity offered by CCP to get involved, provided the mechanics allow it. Calling them all 'losers' just makes you look defensive, btw. It doesn't matter if these are good/bad for ME personally, I welcome the new opportunities offered. And I will adapt. Do whatever you wish to with the changes. The game will only get more interesting. Small gang losers often make exactly the same judgement on me when they accuse me of being an F1 monkey and then demand we have our gameplay style limited CCP. No one in null sec has every asked for small gang warfare to be limited in anyway. Much of my irritation is with a certain small gang worshipper saying this change is all good and he will feast on troll ceptor killmails. His astounding inability to get the point is that he limits his horizon to himself. Myself like all the other goons here see the real problems, the bigger picture, with the current design of fozziesov: firstly there is no meaningful commitment by an attacker, anyone who has fought goons know we love the idea of cheap tactics (our Celestis fleets were rolled gold sources of tears from PL/N3 slowcats), secondly under dominion sov and then phoebe jump changes we had a pretty hard limit on what we could conquer and hold. What we can hold may or may not change post fozziesov, but what we can conquer is now only limited by our time and everyone elses commitment. We can conceivably burn all of null sec now and we will try and if we succeed too easily it wont be a blue donut its will be the north west and a wasteland. That isn't good for the game at all. Null generates the news stories for CCP, lets hope the news isnt "CCP changes game mechanic and ruins 1/3 of space". Your style of game will NOT be removed! For god sake READ the damm dev blog. After the reinforced timer ends there will still be a time and place for the big fleet fights (although that will not be the ONLY available solution) This is NOT removing the large fleet gameplay, it is just creation of a new option and a new stage where small fleet combat will be predominant. I am sure somewhere Fozzie suggested removing fleet warp was a long term goal, which is a massive nerf to our gameplay and an unnessecary change which will not only skull **** massive fleets but is a stealth buff to light brawler fleets (HACs) and bombers and another nerf to battleships, which apparently are in a good place, which was news to everyone in null sec. Even Manfred Sideous of PL who has used battleships vs Hero was a bit wtf with that comment. Sniper doctrines, already in a weak spot are also looking unhappy as they often rely on fleetwarp for positioning. The only people who I see advocating for the removal fleet warps was Grarth "anger management" Telken and random small gang lovers. That being said, constellation capture nodes doesnt encourage large fleets of battleships, but small groups of cruisers and frigates. Battleships will be consigned to the next cap brawl, which have no reason to happen now. Large groups of cruisers like now will be used to bash POS and Pocos because screw warping anywhere in a battlehsip. It's all about how hot my mining lasers get.
Tear Jar Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE. 324	Posted - 2015.03.21 06:49:48 - [2129] - Quote Elenahina wrote: xttz wrote: 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 While I wouldn't mind sized links, I think they need to be kept away from capitals - especially supercapitals - unless we want to end up witht he same N+1 supercaps meta we have today. Even if supers were important for the links ,they would still be terrible for the roaming portion where you have to capture 10 different points.
Tear Jar Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE. 324	Posted - 2015.03.21 06:53:10 - [2130] - Quote The most important thing(in my mind) is that the Entosis links should be very expensive on release. You can always reduce the price as time goes on. If you make them too cheap, you can't easily increase the price later because people will have already stockpiled them. And price is the easiest counter to troll Entosis ships. If killing troll ships is profitable enough, then people will defend their space naturally.

Aralyn Cormallen Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation 904	Posted - 2015.03.21 10:57:04 - [2131] - Quote Tear Jar wrote: The most important thing(in my mind) is that the Entosis links should be very expensive on release. You can always reduce the price as time goes on. If you make them too cheap, you can't easily increase the price later because people will have already stockpiled them. And price is the easiest counter to troll Entosis ships. If killing troll ships is profitable enough, then people will defend their space naturally. No, No, No, No, No. Cost cannot be used as part of the balance equation. Have people learned nothing from Supercaps? If you make E-links a billion a piece, that is still half the cost of a carrier, the third of a cost of a suicide Dread, the cost of two T3'a, all things we throw around like they are nothing. All cost does is price out new groups; every established group, be it an existing sov-holder, wormhole dweller, or NPC null dweller, will think nothing of dropping the price of 5 Titans in to e-links on the first day they are available. Especially now Titans and Supercaps are functionally worthless for sov warfare, there is going to be more than enough isk in everyones pockets to spend any amount of isk needed. The balance in their use must be mechanical.
Zhul Chembull Universalis Imperium The Bastion 104	Posted - 2015.03.21 11:19:39 - [2132] - Quote I really don't see this going well. I am especially disappointed in the use of capital class ships pretty much going to waste. I pretty much thought the community was on point with sov decay instead of this ******** capture the flag idea. There is faction warfare for low sec, keep it there. Lots of great ideas have been posted by guys that have played this game for many years and understand the dynamics. The established alliances know what this will mean. This will not be good for the game. I guess what bothers me the most is the capital ships. Part of the current coolness of eve is that a lot of new players I know work towards the big ships. They want the carrier, dread of even super. However, they do want use out of it for their time of skill training, patience and many hours of making isk. A BIG reason why you have capital ships is for sov warfare, well most the reason honestly. Don't take this use out, go back to the drawing board, suck up the ole pride and get something that makes a lot more sense which incorporates all ships in eve. This is going to fail on its face and we will be stuck with a long waiter timer for a decent sov update. Think it over a bit more.
Alavaria Fera GoonWaffe 6676	Posted - 2015.03.22 01:28:03 - [2133] - Quote Aralyn Cormallen wrote: Tear Jar wrote: The most important thing(in my mind) is that the Entosis links should be very expensive on release. You can always reduce the price as time goes on. If you make them too cheap, you can't easily increase the price later because people will have already stockpiled them. And price is the easiest counter to troll Entosis ships. If killing troll ships is profitable enough, then people will defend their space naturally. No, No, No, No, No. Cost cannot be used as part of the balance equation. Have people learned nothing from Supercaps? If you make E-links a billion a piece, that is still half the cost of a carrier, the third of a cost of a suicide Dread, the cost of two T3'a, all things we throw around like they are nothing. All cost does is price out new groups; every established group, be it an existing sov-holder, wormhole dweller, or NPC null dweller, will think nothing of dropping the price of 5 Titans in to e-links on the first day they are available. Especially now Titans and Supercaps are functionally worthless for sov warfare, there is going to be more than enough isk in everyones pockets to spend any amount of isk needed. The balance in their use must be mechanical. Killing a titan can be very profitable... but uh... hmm ^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears. Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
Mario Putzo Welping and Dunking. 1122	Posted - 2015.03.23 01:16:38 - [2134] - Quote Good changes, the amount of nullbear tears in this thread means you are doing something right!
Veskrashen Justified Chaos Spaceship Bebop 848	Posted - 2015.03.23 02:39:41 - [2135] - Quote Question: When does an opposing link start to pause progress? In other words, if a Ebil Trollceptor rolls up on my iHub, engages his Dastardly Sovlazor. After two minutes, his link connects to the hub, and the timer begins counting down. A notification goes out. Our Hero responds, undocking in his Drake. He warps to the iHub, seeing the Ebil Trollceptor sitting at the edge of link range, about a bazillion km away more or less. The timer is about 20 minutes at this time. As Our Hero's Drake doesn't have the ability to counter the Ebil Trollceptor - them being all invincilble and all, so he fires up his Sovlazor of Salvation. Unfortunately, as Our Hero is obviously a newbie since he's flying a Drake, he needs 5 minutes for his Sovlazor to connect to the iHub. So, when does progress pause? 1. At the moment the defending Sovlazor is activated on the structure 2. At the moment the defending Sovlazor finishes its initial connection cycle If 1, there's far less of a disadvantage in using a T1 sovlazor for defense, since you pause progress right away. If 2, that gives several additional options to prevent a defender (or attacker) from interrupting your progress. If you can break their lock or force them off field before their connection cycle finishes, they won't be able to interrupt your progress. That can make ECM heavy fleets very powerful, assuming enough coordination of course. It also significantly increases the risk for using T1 links, since they have a far higher chance of being disrupted by ECM or simply not being able to complete your initial cycle before the structure is RFed. We Gallente have a saying: "CCP created the Gallente Militia to train the Fighters..."
Arrendis GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 320	Posted - 2015.03.23 04:37:13 - [2136] - Quote Veskrashen wrote: That can make ECM heavy fleets very powerful, assuming enough coordination of course. It also significantly increases the risk for using T1 links, since they have a far higher chance of being disrupted by ECM or simply not being able to complete your initial cycle before the structure is RFed. Which, of course, is a large part of why this mechanic works directly against Fozzie's stated goal of 'We want this to affect fitting and ship choices as little as possible'.
Nolak Ataru KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 795	Posted - 2015.03.23 04:47:14 - [2137] - Quote Veskrashen wrote: That can make ECM heavy fleets very powerful, assuming enough coordination of course. It also significantly increases the risk for using T1 links, since they have a far higher chance of being disrupted by ECM or simply not being able to complete your initial cycle before the structure is RFed. Just an FYI, ECM is not as used as damps or TD because ECM is chance based while damps and TDs aren't.
Aiyshimin Fistful of Finns Triumvirate. 485	Posted - 2015.03.23 07:16:40 - [2138] - Quote Aiyshimin wrote: Some specific questions on the Command Node capture event: Are the Command Nodes in deadspace? (like Large FW complexes) Is the exact victory condition for the event just "whoever first completes 10 nodes"? Can NPC corp members use Entosis Links on structures? Does the Entosis Link cycle continue without target lock? Do the nodes have a visible timer for everyone on grid? Now that CCP is back from the festival,, could we get more details?
Wanda Fayne Gurlz with Gunz 65	Posted - 2015.03.23 07:20:38 - [2139] - Quote Veskrashen wrote: stuff. Question: If a FW Militia captures SOV of a system, does that system now fly the flag of that respective Empire? Hmmm...
Iroquoiss Pliskin Hedion University Amarr Empire 57	Posted - 2015.03.23 08:04:45 - [2140] - Quote Wanda Fayne wrote: Veskrashen wrote: stuff. Question: If a FW Militia captures SOV of a system, does that system now fly the flag of that respective Empire? Hmmm... LONG LIVE THE EMPI... I mean the BLOOD COVENANT. ( -í° -£-û -í°)

xttz GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 532	Posted - 2015.03.23 08:55:48 - [2141] - Quote At the risk of re-igniting wailing about trollceptors etc, I think I have a solution to help encourage at least a token amount of commitment to attacking sov structures without removing too much freedom for small groups. Give them all a token amount of shield HP (in the 5-10k range). This shield must be below 25% in order to activate an Entosis Link on the structure, although once activated it doesn't matter if the shield recharges providing the connection is not lost. If all the attacking ships with an active link on grid lose their lock, they have to lower the shield again to activate it again. By giving the shield a healthy regen rate, it should be unfeasible for lone frigates to beat it solo; a few hundred DPS should be committed for up to a minute to lower the shield. This would have the following advantages: An attacker needs to be capable of inflicting at least a token amount of damage to control the area around a structure. Smaller less valuable ships will typically need to commit closer to a structure, while larger vessels have more room to dictate range. Electronic warfare becomes a more viable counter to ships who skirt the edge of the lock range but well outside their effective weapons range. It encourages redundancy in both link and damage application. Attackers should plan around having sufficient damage ability to taken down the shield while engaging an opponent for control of the grid.
Jori McKie TURN LEFT The Camel Empire 224	Posted - 2015.03.23 09:26:39 - [2142] - Quote xttz wrote: At the risk of re-igniting wailing about trollceptors etc, I think I have a solution to help encourage at least a token amount of commitment to attacking sov structures without removing too much freedom for small groups. Give them all a token amount of shield HP (in the 5-10k range). This shield must be below 25% in order to activate an Entosis Link on the structure, although once activated it doesn't matter if the shield recharges providing the connection is not lost. If all the attacking ships with an active link on grid lose their lock, they have to lower the shield again to activate it again. By giving the shield a healthy regen rate, it should be unfeasible for lone frigates to beat it solo; a few hundred DPS should be committed for up to a minute to lower the shield. This would have the following advantages: An attacker needs to be capable of inflicting at least a token amount of damage to control the area around a structure. Smaller less valuable ships will typically need to commit closer to a structure, while larger vessels have more room to dictate range. Electronic warfare becomes a more viable counter to ships who skirt the edge of the lock range but well outside their effective weapons range. It encourages redundancy in both link and damage application. Attackers should plan around having sufficient damage ability to taken down the shield while engaging an opponent for control of the grid. I agree with the concept and i actually thought about it too. Pros: Unused and uninhabitated are still relative easy to conquer Cons: Reintroduction of the n+1 number problem, more or less I think the most important part is to give the defender a longer reaction time before even the capture process starts. Current stats and mechanics as confirmed by Fozzie are T1 Link 25km range 5min warm up cycle time T2 Link 250km range 2min warm up cycle time Mechanics: Start a warm up cycle - No notification to the sov holder, first notification when the real capture process start. - No warp, no cloak, no cyno, AB/MWD and MJD possible, Bastion and Triage/Siege possible - Losing lock (via off grid, damp or ECM) means you have to wait out the rest of the cycle (while can't warp) without any further progress even if you relock, no progress is saved. After that you have to restart with no progress saved. Suggestion - Notify the sov holder immediately when the "warm up" phase starts. Swap the cycle time on the links as first step T1 Link 25km range 2min warm up cycle time T2 Link 250km range 5min warm up cycle time In case that is still not enough add 2-5min "warm up" timer for both. Or tie the timer to the system index, the higher the index the longer the timer. T1 with 25km range = 4-7min warm up cycle time T2 with 250km range = 7-10min warm up cycle time Any troll attempt with this stats will be a pain in the ass, even if the Defender can't kill the Ceptor any sort of damp, ECM will cost the trolling party so much wasted time i doubt it will be fun. It should be enough reaction time to any troll attempt even on your outer constellation systems. "It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." --áAbrazzar
Aiyshimin Fistful of Finns Triumvirate. 485	Posted - 2015.03.23 09:29:58 - [2143] - Quote I think xtt's suggestion is good, and not really n+1 related, even a small ship can push +200dps solo. The suggestion also deals elegantly with no-skill alts. +1
Jori McKie TURN LEFT The Camel Empire 224	Posted - 2015.03.23 09:43:37 - [2144] - Quote Aiyshimin wrote: I think xtt's suggestion is good, and not really n+1 related, even a small ship can push +200dps solo. The suggestion also deals elegantly with no-skill alts. +1 Yes, it is a good suggestion but it will set an artificial limit. Example: 10k Shield EHP with a 200 DPS recharge rate 2 Ships with 200 DPS each Time to start the warmp up phase -> 50s 4 Ships with 200 DPS each Time to start the warmp up phase -> 16.67s And here is the problem it isn't a 100% n+1 problem but close. Anyway xtt's suggestion in essence buys the Defender more time to react my suggestion does the same without an artificial limit. "It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." --áAbrazzar
Veskrashen Justified Chaos Spaceship Bebop 849	Posted - 2015.03.23 10:51:52 - [2145] - Quote Wanda Fayne wrote: Veskrashen wrote: stuff. Question: If a FW Militia captures SOV of a system, does that system now fly the flag of that respective Empire? Hmmm... Well, the NPC Militia wouldn't be able to, since it's an NPC corp. FW Militia Alliances, however, should probably be able to capture and fly their own Alliance flag as usual. We Gallente have a saying: "CCP created the Gallente Militia to train the Fighters..."
Veskrashen Justified Chaos Spaceship Bebop 849	Posted - 2015.03.23 10:55:31 - [2146] - Quote xttz wrote: At the risk of re-igniting wailing about trollceptors etc, I think I have a solution to help encourage at least a token amount of commitment to attacking sov structures without removing too much freedom for small groups. Give them all a token amount of shield HP (in the 5-10k range). This shield must be below 25% in order to activate an Entosis Link on the structure, although once activated it doesn't matter if the shield recharges providing the connection is not lost. Doesn't really change anything, just means the Trollceptor Blob spends a weapons cycle dropping the shields on everything first. The only thing this does is make sure your frigate can do at least 250ish DPS to be able to solo capture. Creating systems to artificially limit the ship types that can contest Sov just because you don't want to have to chase interceptors all day is bad game design. Literally every single Gewn argument on this thread is why Interceptors - and only Interceptors - should play no role in contesting sov. I have yet to see a compelling reason why they should not be allowed to do so - and the fact that they can evade gatecamps with ease is not a compelling reason in my eyes. We Gallente have a saying: "CCP created the Gallente Militia to train the Fighters..."
Veskrashen Justified Chaos Spaceship Bebop 849	Posted - 2015.03.23 10:57:21 - [2147] - Quote Arrendis wrote: Veskrashen wrote: That can make ECM heavy fleets very powerful, assuming enough coordination of course. It also significantly increases the risk for using T1 links, since they have a far higher chance of being disrupted by ECM or simply not being able to complete your initial cycle before the structure is RFed. Which, of course, is a large part of why this mechanic works directly against Fozzie's stated goal of 'We want this to affect fitting and ship choices as little as possible'. Not really - there's all kinds of ways to counter ECM / damp heavy fleet comps - sitting at zero with Sebos works well, for instance. It does make kiting harder if you're totally troll fit, but other than that there's ways around it. We Gallente have a saying: "CCP created the Gallente Militia to train the Fighters..."
Jarnis McPieksu Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion 568	Posted - 2015.03.23 18:17:44 - [2148] - Quote I'm facepalming as I'm reading this thread. As it is clear that CCP intends to use the Entosis mechanic not only for sov (which is mostly meaningless in the grand scheme of things) but also for structures, up to outposts, it is clear that the design, as presented, is terribly broken. As presented, this system is so hilariously biased towards giving the attacker every upside there is that I'm running out of adjectives to describe it. Attacker can spread out and choose where to start poking at things, pressure the defenders with massive number of simultaneous "capture starts" (some of which inevitably go through because there is only so many places where you can be at the same time). Attacker gets to pick when to start messing with things - defenders have to basically stand guard over all their space things throughout their prime time EVERY DAY or risk a flood of timers. Once you have a flood of timers, attacker again gets to pick which ones they contest. Defenders have to cover every single one. They may contest none, only to come back the next day and trigger a flood of new timers. They may repeat this multiple times until you are sick and tired of standing guard and decide to skip one, only to find all your space-things burned to the ground. As long as attacking against structures or sov facilities does not require the attacker to put any substantial assets at risk and can be attempted solo, per target, the whole system is hopelessly broken The fact that CCP cannot apparently see this is troubling. Everything else is unimportant detail at this time. Edit: and for the record, PL doesn't hold any meaningful sov, I don't run any structures beyond a couple of fairly unimportant POSes. Should this go live as-described, I'd probably be among the guys burning everything to the ground and cackling maniacally. I still think it is a terrible design.
Soldarius Kosher Nostra The 99 Percent 1181	Posted - 2015.03.23 18:37:36 - [2149] - Quote Aiyshimin wrote: some random nerd's twatter feed Bwah-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha! I cannot stop laughing. Do you even know who The Mittani is? On subject, yeah, I'm still holding out for Entosis Links being fieldable only on link-capable ships like CBC and CS. http://youtu.be/YVkUvmDQ3HY
Nolak Ataru KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 795	Posted - 2015.03.23 23:36:27 - [2150] - Quote Soldarius wrote: On subject, yeah, I'm still holding out for Entosis Links being fieldable only on link-capable ships like CBC and CS. INB4 prophecy fleet.

Mario Putzo Welping and Dunking. 1123	Posted - 2015.03.24 04:35:18 - [2151] - Quote Jarnis McPieksu wrote: As long as attacking against structures or sov facilities does not require the attacker to put any substantial assets at risk and can be attempted solo, per target, the whole system is hopelessly broken If an alliance can not adequately defend its space or assets...than they do not deserve that space or assets. If you are getting so many notifications you don't know what to do, you either A) Have too much space B) Have too much ** spread out C) Have too few people willing to engage. The ideal metrics behind the changes have pilots active in every system you control, there should be no capacity or minimal capacity for anyone to just show up and start entosis linking all your , if your pilots are active in your systems. If it is cross time zone shenanigans, then your preset "random" TZ of activity should be chalk full of bodies capable of showing up and defending. Its not like RUS folks are going to be in mass numbers for a TZ that pops out around dinner time US. Its just not a realistically feasible suggestion to believe that. Will some, sure, will they bring US friends probably, but you should have a huge advantage in that regard. Anything during your "active" period that gets sent to a timer, is the fault of your organizational capacity or your pilots being chicken . All the other ** folks complain about is just hyperbole and whine for the sake of whine. If you can't defend it, you don't deserve to have it. Period.
Cade Windstalker Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra 307	Posted - 2015.03.24 06:55:00 - [2152] - Quote Jarnis McPieksu wrote: I'm facepalming as I'm reading this thread. As it is clear that CCP intends to use the Entosis mechanic not only for sov (which is mostly meaningless in the grand scheme of things) but also for structures, up to outposts, it is clear that the design, as presented, is terribly broken. As presented, this system is so hilariously biased towards giving the attacker every upside there is that I'm running out of adjectives to describe it. Attacker can spread out and choose where to start poking at things, pressure the defenders with massive number of simultaneous "capture starts" (some of which inevitably go through because there is only so many places where you can be at the same time). Attacker gets to pick when to start messing with things - defenders have to basically stand guard over all their space things throughout their prime time EVERY DAY or risk a flood of timers. Once you have a flood of timers, attacker again gets to pick which ones they contest. Defenders have to cover every single one. They may contest none, only to come back the next day and trigger a flood of new timers. They may repeat this multiple times until you are sick and tired of standing guard and decide to skip one, only to find all your space-things burned to the ground. As long as attacking against structures or sov facilities does not require the attacker to put any substantial assets at risk and can be attempted solo, per target, the whole system is hopelessly broken The fact that CCP cannot apparently see this is troubling. Everything else is unimportant detail at this time. Edit: and for the record, PL doesn't hold any meaningful sov, I don't run any structures beyond a couple of fairly unimportant POSes. Should this go live as-described, I'd probably be among the guys burning everything to the ground and cackling maniacally. I still think it is a terrible design. Part of the point here is to make it unappealing and impractical for entities to hold huge swaths of null sec space that aren't being actively used by their members. If a group is using all of their space to a high degree then as soon as someone starts a capture timer they have 30 or 40 minutes to respond and the capturing party has to sit around waving a "Shoot Me!" sign with their thumbs up their arse for the entire timer, and the defending party only needs a few minutes to revert the structure to a safe state once they kill or chase off the offending party. If you have a suggestion for adjusting things to be less troll-friendly without making sov "defense by boredom" again I'm sure we'd all love to hear it.
Anthar Thebess 974	Posted - 2015.03.24 07:42:05 - [2153] - Quote Renter alliances start to adapt to upcoming sov changes. http://evemaps.dotlan.net/alliance/Uncharted_Space Renter space is already being divided to managable , but again controlled sub alliances. Will CCP manage to overcome this or it will again fail in design. Currently CCP already simplifies the way people can manage unused space by reducing size of the upgrades and ihub itself. Replacing ihub at current size blocked ability to keep remote space , just because of the immense logistics. With the reduced size you can just packup multiple ihubs to a single JF. Way to go CCP Capital Remote AID Rebalance Way to solve important nullsec issue. CSM members do your work.
Cade Windstalker Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra 307	Posted - 2015.03.24 09:51:41 - [2154] - Quote Anthar Thebess wrote: Renter alliances start to adapt to upcoming sov changes. http://evemaps.dotlan.net/alliance/Uncharted_Space Renter space is already being divided to managable , but again controlled sub alliances. Will CCP manage to overcome this or it will again fail in design. Currently CCP already simplifies the way people can manage unused space by reducing size of the upgrades and ihub itself. Replacing ihub at current size blocked ability to keep remote space , just because of the immense logistics. With the reduced size you can just packup multiple ihubs to a single JF. Way to go CCP You don't need to sub-divide an alliance under the proposed system, you just need to be making use of the space in order for it to be defensible. There's no difference between defending 20 systems held by 20 Alliances or 1 Alliance, except that with more Alliances you have more trouble hitting the defense timers since only the defender can tick them down.
Veskrashen Justified Chaos Spaceship Bebop 849	Posted - 2015.03.24 12:26:39 - [2155] - Quote Jarnis McPieksu wrote: As long as attacking against structures or sov facilities does not require the attacker to put any substantial assets at risk and can be attempted solo, per target, the whole system is hopelessly broken What's your minimum acceptable "commitment" then, in terms of fleet size / ship cost? Folks keep saying a Solo Interceptor isn't enough commitment, but seem to be just fine with someone using a T1 cruiser or BC to do the same job, solo. Since those are pretty close to the same cost (with BCs being slightly more), cost alone can't be an issue. Few folks are making an argument that you have to use at least X number of pilots or links to contest something - what's your minimum number? I get that Trollceptors are going to be a PITA, I really do. And I get that having everything vulnerable every day is going to be a huge shift. But if folks say a solo interceptor isn't enough risk / commitment, what IS the minimum acceptable risk / commitment? We Gallente have a saying: "CCP created the Gallente Militia to train the Fighters..."
Jarnis McPieksu Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion 570	Posted - 2015.03.24 13:57:45 - [2156] - Quote Veskrashen wrote: Jarnis McPieksu wrote: As long as attacking against structures or sov facilities does not require the attacker to put any substantial assets at risk and can be attempted solo, per target, the whole system is hopelessly broken What's your minimum acceptable "commitment" then, in terms of fleet size / ship cost? Folks keep saying a Solo Interceptor isn't enough commitment, but seem to be just fine with someone using a T1 cruiser or BC to do the same job, solo. Since those are pretty close to the same cost (with BCs being slightly more), cost alone can't be an issue. Few folks are making an argument that you have to use at least X number of pilots or links to contest something - what's your minimum number? I get that Trollceptors are going to be a PITA, I really do. And I get that having everything vulnerable every day is going to be a huge shift. But if folks say a solo interceptor isn't enough risk / commitment, what IS the minimum acceptable risk / commitment? More than a single pilot, more than a throaway set of ships. 1 guy flying a frigate? nope. 1 guy flying anything is a bad idea. Far too easy to "swarm" everything with those who encounter resistance just bailing out. 5 guys flying frigates? Probably too little assets at risk. 5 guys flying T3 cruisers? Could work. 10 guys flying battlecruisers? Sounds good to me. Now if structures actually have ability to fit substantial defenses that alone blap away that one guy in his whatever ship, things could work out. If you could plant a blap structure next to Sov flag/outpost, even better. That would force the entosis fiddler to actually have something that can tank the autonomous defenses (like today's towers work, minus the huge EHP to grind) - probably a handful of ships and a couple of logis. But if all structures are effectively defenseless without active player reaction toa single guy in a single throaway ship, things are broken.
Veskrashen Justified Chaos Spaceship Bebop 849	Posted - 2015.03.24 14:12:50 - [2157] - Quote Well, all I can say is if your minimum acceptable level of effort is 5-10 dudes in T3s or BCs, you're probably going to be disappointed. If one of the goals of Fozziesov is to remove artificial numbers / ship size restrictions to be a part of the sov game, then 5-10 pilots as a minimum is probably outside the realm of the feasible - especially since you only need 1 Entosis Link to contest a structure. I agree that being able to bail out at will is a bad idea, which is why I'm glad that Entosis Links prevent warp / jump / remote effects while active. It's also why I think the longer range variant should have the longer cycle time, to increase the risk. The ability to be swarmed is a risk, but it also opens the possibility to defeat your enemy in detail. It also means you can achieve local superiority with ease - Interceptor vs. BC means the Interceptor makes no progress. Any argument about swarm tactics attacking everything simultaneously needs to address how those minimal DPS minimal EHP ships will actually accomplish anything against a defender with a Link active on the same structure. And "go somewhere else" doesn't really answer the question. No to passive defenses on structures - you want your flag on the map, then man up and defend your space, simple as that. We Gallente have a saying: "CCP created the Gallente Militia to train the Fighters..."
Mario Putzo Welping and Dunking. 1126	Posted - 2015.03.24 16:49:43 - [2158] - Quote Jarnis McPieksu wrote: Veskrashen wrote: Jarnis McPieksu wrote: As long as attacking against structures or sov facilities does not require the attacker to put any substantial assets at risk and can be attempted solo, per target, the whole system is hopelessly broken What's your minimum acceptable "commitment" then, in terms of fleet size / ship cost? Folks keep saying a Solo Interceptor isn't enough commitment, but seem to be just fine with someone using a T1 cruiser or BC to do the same job, solo. Since those are pretty close to the same cost (with BCs being slightly more), cost alone can't be an issue. Few folks are making an argument that you have to use at least X number of pilots or links to contest something - what's your minimum number? I get that Trollceptors are going to be a PITA, I really do. And I get that having everything vulnerable every day is going to be a huge shift. But if folks say a solo interceptor isn't enough risk / commitment, what IS the minimum acceptable risk / commitment? More than a single pilot, more than a throaway set of ships. 1 guy flying a frigate? nope. 1 guy flying anything is a bad idea. Far too easy to "swarm" everything with those who encounter resistance just bailing out. 5 guys flying frigates? Probably too little assets at risk. 5 guys flying T3 cruisers? Could work. 10 guys flying battlecruisers? Sounds good to me. Now if structures actually have ability to fit substantial defenses that alone blap away that one guy in his whatever ship, things could work out. If you could plant a blap structure next to Sov flag/outpost, even better. That would force the entosis fiddler to actually have something that can tank the autonomous defenses (like today's towers work, minus the huge EHP to grind) - probably a handful of ships and a couple of logis. But if all structures are effectively defenseless without active player reaction toa single guy in a single throaway ship, things are broken. How come you continually, and conveniently ignore the other side of the coin. If 1 dude in a frigate is causing you so much grief in a system, send 1 dude in a destroyer to live in that system. You continually use words like "defenseless" and "swarm" and ignore the fact that the other folks have a responsibility to defend their assets. One guy in a frig is going to cause ZERO effective issues because he is EASILY countered by 1 guy in a destroyer, who should be living in that system or relative area to increase Occupancy Metrics making it harder to effectively take **. Why, for the love of god, do people continuously look at in a vacuum when discussing balance metrics. Its absolutely astounding the amount of narrow scope minded individuals who can't see the forest through the trees. Its astonishing how many folks are ignorant of a whole package deal. Mind boggling really. If you are playing the game the way it is being set up, you will have absolutely no issue with small groups of players "griefing" your **, because you will have your own groups of players already there and present. At that point it becomes a Player issue, not a mechanic issue...if your pilots living in the space are afraid to engage a few trollceptors than the risk/reward gap lies in your pilots, not FozzieSov.
Mario Putzo Welping and Dunking. 1127	Posted - 2015.03.24 17:02:14 - [2159] - Quote Anthar Thebess wrote: Renter alliances start to adapt to upcoming sov changes. http://evemaps.dotlan.net/alliance/Uncharted_Space Renter space is already being divided to managable , but again controlled sub alliances. Will CCP manage to overcome this or it will again fail in design. Currently CCP already simplifies the way people can manage unused space by reducing size of the upgrades and ihub itself. Replacing ihub at current size blocked ability to keep remote space , just because of the immense logistics. With the reduced size you can just packup multiple ihubs to a single JF. Way to go CCP What is wrong with this? If people want to rent, then they should be able to rent. If their corporation wishes to join a sub alliance of a larger entity than that is just another choice in the process of the game. Will those renters actively help defend that area? Who knows. But someone will have to actively defend that area, and that responsibility first rests squarely on the shoulders of the Landlord. If NC. wants to have 100 sub alliances controlling all their constallations or what not to rent out, than NC. still needs to defend those places regardless if the name on the title is NC. or NA. It really makes effectively 0 difference how people get into null sec, it makes 0 effective difference who owns the region and if it is rented or not. The only thing that matters is, is their an entity willing to fight for that space, and is someone willing to defend it. And, Or, and Nor all apply hear, and all result in the same outcomes...either people will fight for what they want...or they wont. Regardless of who owns it and how many owners are working together in tandem.
Tengu Grib Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE. 1016	Posted - 2015.03.24 18:27:50 - [2160] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: PotatoOverdose wrote: Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Evasion tactics will be optimal so long as they are possible. [Citation needed] Ever heard of these new things they have now, called people? People will always take the low road, they will always do as little as possible to get to their goals. It's really rather interesting. Sarcasm aside, it's a binary equation. Either it's possible to capture sov by dicking around in a kiting ship, or it's not. If it is, then it's a damn sight easier than actually fighting for sov, so it will become the optimal assignment of resources. Even if it doesn't disable them, it could reduce their effectiveness. I reduction in max velocity caused by the activation of the Entosis link would easily accomplish this. Sometimes trollceptors would be able to be threatening, for instance if all the defenders brought were battleships and battlecruisers, but if they have any micro warping frigates trollceptors will have a fight on their hands. I think people also forget that a single defensive sov laser prevents capture. So you can sit at zero in a brick tanked battleship, surrounded by rapid light caracals, and trollceptors are helpless to attack you. They'll just have to go next door and bug someone else. (This isn't exactly ideal either as the optimal strategy for harassment will be to fly around looking for ways to avoid fights rather than looking for fights.)

Tengu Grib Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE. 1016	Posted - 2015.03.24 18:38:21 - [2161] - Quote Veskrashen wrote: Kaarous Aldurald wrote: And as was stated here, evasion tactics not being optimal is also a goal of theirs. Kiting comps should remain viable, even if they're not optimal. I cannot disagree with this. I think I'll have to retract my previous statement about reducing speed. Sensor damps and jams should be enough to counter trollceptors pretty easily. Veskrashen wrote: Changing the subject a bit, what about swapping the ranges on the T1/T2 links? T1 links would have the 250km effective range, but with a 5 minute cycle time. That would mean that someone using a T1 link who lost lock or had to evade would suffer a much greater time penalty before being able to make progress on that (or another) structure. Kiting ships would be forced to remain on field much longer - up to 5 minutes at a time - since the Entosis Link would prevent them from warping out. While T2 links would have a shorter range, they'd connect much faster, making it easier to stop someone else's progress and to reconnect should you lose your own. It would also allow you to disengage from brawls faster, rather than being pinned on field for 5 minutes in a brawling comp with no remote support available. This would also force capitals / supercapitals to either remain close to their objective to take advantage of the 2 minute cycle time on the T2 link, or be forced to face tank an enemy fleet for up to 5 minutes at a time. Now that is an idea that I think demands consideration. I like the idea of having to make the choice of less risky time but more risky range, and less risky range but more risky time. That would allow both brawling and snipping or kiting doctrines to be viable with different strategies involved.
Jarnis McPieksu Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion 571	Posted - 2015.03.24 20:34:49 - [2162] - Quote Mario Putzo wrote: Jarnis McPieksu wrote: Veskrashen wrote: Jarnis McPieksu wrote: As long as attacking against structures or sov facilities does not require the attacker to put any substantial assets at risk and can be attempted solo, per target, the whole system is hopelessly broken What's your minimum acceptable "commitment" then, in terms of fleet size / ship cost? Folks keep saying a Solo Interceptor isn't enough commitment, but seem to be just fine with someone using a T1 cruiser or BC to do the same job, solo. Since those are pretty close to the same cost (with BCs being slightly more), cost alone can't be an issue. Few folks are making an argument that you have to use at least X number of pilots or links to contest something - what's your minimum number? I get that Trollceptors are going to be a PITA, I really do. And I get that having everything vulnerable every day is going to be a huge shift. But if folks say a solo interceptor isn't enough risk / commitment, what IS the minimum acceptable risk / commitment? More than a single pilot, more than a throaway set of ships. 1 guy flying a frigate? nope. 1 guy flying anything is a bad idea. Far too easy to "swarm" everything with those who encounter resistance just bailing out. 5 guys flying frigates? Probably too little assets at risk. 5 guys flying T3 cruisers? Could work. 10 guys flying battlecruisers? Sounds good to me. Now if structures actually have ability to fit substantial defenses that alone blap away that one guy in his whatever ship, things could work out. If you could plant a blap structure next to Sov flag/outpost, even better. That would force the entosis fiddler to actually have something that can tank the autonomous defenses (like today's towers work, minus the huge EHP to grind) - probably a handful of ships and a couple of logis. But if all structures are effectively defenseless without active player reaction toa single guy in a single throaway ship, things are broken. How come you continually, and conveniently ignore the other side of the coin. If 1 dude in a frigate is causing you so much grief in a system, send 1 dude in a destroyer to live in that system. You continually use words like "defenseless" and "swarm" and ignore the fact that the other folks have a responsibility to defend their assets. One guy in a frig is going to cause ZERO effective issues because he is EASILY countered by 1 guy in a destroyer, who should be living in that system or relative area to increase Occupancy Metrics making it harder to effectively take **. Why, for the love of god, do people continuously look at in a vacuum when discussing balance metrics. Its absolutely astounding the amount of narrow scope minded individuals who can't see the forest through the trees. Its astonishing how many folks are ignorant of a whole package deal. Mind boggling really. If you are playing the game the way it is being set up, you will have absolutely no issue with small groups of players "griefing" your **, because you will have your own groups of players already there and present. At that point it becomes a Player issue, not a mechanic issue...if your pilots living in the space are afraid to engage a few trollceptors than the risk/reward gap lies in your pilots, not FozzieSov. The one guy has no skin in the game. Granted, we don't know enough about structures to fully comment on them, but if they are just "dumb rocks" that one entosis link can contest, then the defender has hundreds of millions, potentially billions of ISKies "on the table". The other guy has a frig and an entosis link. 99 times out of 100, a dessie comes and kills him. Op success. 1 times out of 100 people miss things, oops, bye bye space thingy. Attacker chooses when to push for entosis poke. Attacker chooses which entosis poke RFs to contest. Defender has to be there 100% of the time, or lose very expensive spacethingys. Attacker keeps tossing away expendable stuff repeatedly, waiting for that one day when the defender is fed up of having to go around whacking moles. Also attacker chooses which entosis "solo" pokes are actually backed up by more, giving defender the ship losses. So defender has to form up something by definition, just to blap that one t1 frig, because one t1 frig can be a fleet of stuff because cynos and bridges. All the time, attacker has initiative, attacker has all the advantages. Defender has to react to every single thing while attacker puts nothing of value at risk. A single event is trivial to counter. Ten events every damn day gets very tiresome very quickly, especially as just responding with a single ship can so easily end in a welp. If attacker would actually have to show up with something of some value, all those times when he's blapped off the structure, he'd lose something. Again, this is with incomplete info. If you can anchor POS-replacement-structures with automated defenses - and if you can anchor them next to other structures (sov thingys, manufacturing structures, gate structures etc) - the problem basically goes away as attacker now has to bring enough ships to tank the defensive structure fire while using the entosis thingy, ensuring that if/when defender responds, there is an actual fight, not a T1 frig dying (nothing of value) or moonwalking to sunset.
Cade Windstalker Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra 309	Posted - 2015.03.24 21:04:21 - [2163] - Quote Jarnis McPieksu wrote: 99 times out of 100, a dessie comes and kills him. Op success. 1 times out of 100 people miss things, oops, bye bye space thingy. Attacker chooses when to push for entosis poke. Attacker chooses which entosis poke RFs to contest. Defender has to be there 100% of the time, or lose very expensive spacethingys. Attacker keeps tossing away expendable stuff repeatedly, waiting for that one day when the defender is fed up of having to go around whacking moles. Also attacker chooses which entosis "solo" pokes are actually backed up by more, giving defender the ship losses. So defender has to form up something by definition, just to blap that one t1 frig, because one t1 frig can be a fleet of stuff because cynos and bridges. All the time, attacker has initiative, attacker has all the advantages. Defender has to react to every single thing while attacker puts nothing of value at risk. A single event is trivial to counter. Ten events every damn day gets very tiresome very quickly, especially as just responding with a single ship can so easily end in a welp. You don't lose just because a single timer ticks down, you lose if you somehow miss the Alliance Wide mail saying "this thing needs to be locked down at this time over here". If the enemy sends throwaway stuff then you blap it, spend maybe half an hour getting 10 node points on your side, and go back to whatever you were doing. The attacker has to spend at least 80 minutes doing the same thing if you're fully utilizing space. If you're only mostly utilizing it then at least an hour. If you're going for war by frustration then the advantage is squarely on the defender's side. Sure they keep getting poked but if the enemy is a sov holding alliance then there's nothing stopping them from poking right back and if they aren't then they'll probably get bored of wasting 50-100mil ISK ships for no gain and minimal enjoyment.
Saisin State War Academy Caldari State 221	Posted - 2015.03.24 21:31:35 - [2164] - Quote Jarnis McPieksu wrote: ... 10 guys flying battlecruisers? Sounds good to me. ... The only thing that I agree with from your post is requiring at least a battlecruiser hull to fit an entosis link. There should absolutely not be any requirement in term of having a certain number of pilots around to apply the effect. Higher numbers will alwyas be better to defend the entosis ship. And the defensive Entosis ship should have the exact same limitations. "surrender your ego, be free". innuendo. solo? There is a new hope...
Veskrashen Justified Chaos Spaceship Bebop 851	Posted - 2015.03.24 22:20:37 - [2165] - Quote Saisin wrote: Jarnis McPieksu wrote: ... 10 guys flying battlecruisers? Sounds good to me. ... The only thing that I agree with from your post is requiring at least a battlecruiser hull to fit an entosis link. Why is a BC the minimum? Because it costs 40mil? Because it can't evade a gatecamp? Because you want BCs to be relevant again? I disagree that a solo pilot has no skin in the game. He has his ship and his pod (however cheap or expensive they may be), and he's representing whatever alliance or corp or coalition he flies with. Why should he need 4-9 friends before he becomes relevant? Isn't the whole point of Butterfly Effect trailers and This Is EVE to show that every single pilot is and should be meaningful? We Gallente have a saying: "CCP created the Gallente Militia to train the Fighters..."
Saisin State War Academy Caldari State 221	Posted - 2015.03.24 22:29:45 - [2166] - Quote Veskrashen wrote: Why is a BC the minimum? Because it costs 40mil? Because it can't evade a gatecamp? Because you want BCs to be relevant again? Yes, it is still an affordable ship that could be made more relevant, and would not cause that many issues about trolling entosis links in multiple locations at the same time, either by powerful groups spreading around, or random solo players that happen to fly by. Veskrashen wrote: I disagree that a solo pilot has no skin in the game. He has his ship and his pod (however cheap or expensive they may be), and he's representing whatever alliance or corp or coalition he flies with. Why should he need 4-9 friends before he becomes relevant? Isn't the whole point of Butterfly Effect trailers and This Is EVE to show that every single pilot is and should be meaningful? Totally agree with that. The excellent thing about entosis is that a single player can attack, and a single player can defend, but in both cases, more players will help the efforts. "surrender your ego, be free". innuendo. solo? There is a new hope...
Veskrashen Justified Chaos Spaceship Bebop 853	Posted - 2015.03.24 22:38:44 - [2167] - Quote Saisin wrote: Veskrashen wrote: Why is a BC the minimum? Because it costs 40mil? Because it can't evade a gatecamp? Because you want BCs to be relevant again? Yes, it is still an affordable ship that could be made more relevant, and would not cause that many issues about trolling entosis links in multiple locations at the same time, either by powerful groups spreading around, or random solo players that happen to fly by. Unfortunately, making sure that Entosis boats can get past bubbleinstalockhellcamps is a design goal that we need to be able to fulfill, otherwise all the major groups will be able to build high enough walls to continue holding more space than they can occupy. Which pretty much nullifies a big part of the conflict drivers in Fozziesov In addition, Fozzie specifically stated that they want it to have as little impact on what fleet comp you fly as possible, fitting-wise. Restricting it to BC+ hulls would run directly counter to that. Not to mention the fact that I doubt CCP will make Sov mechanics dependent on folks who want BCs Online back. We Gallente have a saying: "CCP created the Gallente Militia to train the Fighters..."
Cade Windstalker Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra 309	Posted - 2015.03.24 22:42:07 - [2168] - Quote I disagree with the idea that there should be a minimum ship requirement to fit an Entosis Link, especially not a BC. T1 Cruiser fleets are fun and viable, so you've just tossed them out of the window with that requirement. Same with Destroyers. If it can hold grid or mount an effective attack or defense it should be viable. I think we'll get a more productive discussion out of focusing on that requirement instead of zeroing in on the idea of trolling interceptors or "cheap" frigate fleets here. Plus don't forget the T1 Entosis is going to cost around 40 mil, and the T2 around 80 mil so the cost of the ship is less relevant unless we want to hard limit this to Battleships and T2 of cruiser and up, which most serious replies (and CCP) seem to agree as being excessively limiting. So, question, is the range on the T2 part of the problem here? On the one hand that kind of range seems necessary to enable sniper fleets and other doctrines as viable in this new sov system, on the other it seems like a big part of the problem with Interceptors since an Inty that can't warp off is much less of a threat if you know he's going to be within swatting range of the target when you land on grid, rather than anywhere within 250km. Maybe split the Entosis Link into more modules than just a T1 and T2? Like, a Long Range Entosis Link that has higher fitting requirements or a Mass Penatly or something, but has the range needed to support those sorts of fleets, vs something like the current T1. There's some potential for confusion here but if you're going out to take Sov a certain amount of understanding and research should be assumed as a prerequisite.
Veskrashen Justified Chaos Spaceship Bebop 853	Posted - 2015.03.24 22:50:46 - [2169] - Quote Cade Windstalker wrote: So, question, is the range on the T2 part of the problem here? On the one hand that kind of range seems necessary to enable sniper fleets and other doctrines as viable in this new sov system, on the other it seems like a big part of the problem with Interceptors since an Inty that can't warp off is much less of a threat if you know he's going to be within swatting range of the target when you land on grid, rather than anywhere within 250km. I think the instawarp + bubble immunity of Interceptors is the issue, because folks can't just bubblecamp the hell out of chokepoints 4 hours per day and maintain their huge empires. The 250km range isn't an issue in an era of combat probes and no deadspace to prevent on-grid warps. In addition, since losing lock drops your link and forces you to reconnect for 2/5 minutes, SeBo'd Mauluses can easily shut down any max kite Entosis fleet. We Gallente have a saying: "CCP created the Gallente Militia to train the Fighters..."
Cade Windstalker Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra 310	Posted - 2015.03.24 23:09:10 - [2170] - Quote Veskrashen wrote: I think the instawarp + bubble immunity of Interceptors is the issue, because folks can't just bubblecamp the hell out of chokepoints 4 hours per day and maintain their huge empires. The 250km range isn't an issue in an era of combat probes and no deadspace to prevent on-grid warps. In addition, since losing lock drops your link and forces you to reconnect for 2/5 minutes, SeBo'd Mauluses can easily shut down any max kite Entosis fleet. I think anyone expecting these huge empires to stick, at least as they are now, after this update is delusional. Especially given that the system is specifically setup to make holding space you don't use hard, and part of that is definitely the vulnerability to attack of multiple disparate points. Since you don't need a massive fleet to down sov structures anymore you'd better be holding space you both use and can defend. That said, I think concerns of "death by annoyance" are valid here. Eve has no shortage of trolls and Interceptor pilots are cheap and easy to train so it's very possible for someone to just keep poking defenses until their enemy gets too fed up to defend it effectively. IMO that's an undesirable outcome, but I don't see an easy way to actually remove it as a possibility without hobbling the system into something that's just another version of the grind we have now or isn't abuseable as hell.

Specia1 K State War Academy Caldari State 44	Posted - 2015.03.24 23:18:38 - [2171] - Quote Cade Windstalker wrote: Veskrashen wrote: I think the instawarp + bubble immunity of Interceptors is the issue, because folks can't just bubblecamp the hell out of chokepoints 4 hours per day and maintain their huge empires. The 250km range isn't an issue in an era of combat probes and no deadspace to prevent on-grid warps. In addition, since losing lock drops your link and forces you to reconnect for 2/5 minutes, SeBo'd Mauluses can easily shut down any max kite Entosis fleet. I think anyone expecting these huge empires to stick, at least as they are now, after this update is delusional. Especially given that the system is specifically setup to make holding space you don't use hard, and part of that is definitely the vulnerability to attack of multiple disparate points. Since you don't need a massive fleet to down sov structures anymore you'd better be holding space you both use and can defend. That said, I think concerns of "death by annoyance" are valid here. Eve has no shortage of trolls and Interceptor pilots are cheap and easy to train so it's very possible for someone to just keep poking defenses until their enemy gets too fed up to defend it effectively. IMO that's an undesirable outcome, but I don't see an easy way to actually remove it as a possibility without hobbling the system into something that's just another version of the grind we have now or isn't abuseable as hell. There's nothing stopping me trolling the trolls with a Keres, either. Just for the lolz, breaking all those target locks and warping out. You will be hard pressed to scan me down with probes when I'm just off grid waiting for you to start your entosis link
Nevyn Auscent Broke Sauce 1976	Posted - 2015.03.24 23:38:55 - [2172] - Quote It occurs to me that the new structures (assuming they have an AI which is really 100% required) pretty much solve trollceptor issue on their own. Since they will come with passive defence. So while you might not need a massive fleet to grind down the HP's, you do need some degree of fleet logi or active tank to survive the passive defences. Which can then be customised to have something that is effective against a solo trollceptor. And if there is a whole flight of them, well then it's not a solo trollceptor but a fleet.
Veskrashen Justified Chaos Spaceship Bebop 853	Posted - 2015.03.24 23:58:32 - [2173] - Quote Cade Windstalker wrote: That said, I think concerns of "death by annoyance" are valid here. Eve has no shortage of trolls and Interceptor pilots are cheap and easy to train so it's very possible for someone to just keep poking defenses until their enemy gets too fed up to defend it effectively. IMO that's an undesirable outcome, but I don't see an easy way to actually remove it as a possibility without hobbling the system into something that's just another version of the grind we have now or isn't abuseable as hell. Death by annoyance is a valid concern, but that's basically the same as any other "keep them under pressure until they break" tactic. Reship times will make a difference in how consistently the pressure can be applied, and the expenses involved could potentially be an issue. Finally, given the fact that the simple expedient of sticking an AFK alt in a passive tanked Drake at zero with a defensive link active essentially nullifies this tactic, or at least forces the baddies to bring around 600+dps to clear it off. So there's counters, they're just manpower intensive to some degree. Nevyn Auscent wrote: It occurs to me that the new structures (assuming they have an AI which is really 100% required) pretty much solve trollceptor issue on their own. Since they will come with passive defence. So while you might not need a massive fleet to grind down the HP's, you do need some degree of fleet logi or active tank to survive the passive defences. Which can then be customised to have something that is effective against a solo trollceptor. And if there is a whole flight of them, well then it's not a solo trollceptor but a fleet. That could very well be the case, especially if they're not restricted to be anchored in any particular place in space. That's a long ways off though, most likely, so there'll be a fairly long period where folks will need to deal with Death by Annoyance tactics. We Gallente have a saying: "CCP created the Gallente Militia to train the Fighters..."
Cade Windstalker Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra 311	Posted - 2015.03.25 00:11:23 - [2174] - Quote So, it sounds like we want an answer from CCP Fozzie and the rest of the dev team as to what kind of customization and defenses we're looking at on these sov structures, if any. They may not be willing to commit to anything there at this time though, since the structures rework is looking at being a ways in the future. Until we hear otherwise I think it's safer to assume that this system will have to survive on its own with the current structures for at least a few months. Besides which there's no guarantee that any sort of defenses would be able to reliably deal with a MWD inty at 200km. Personally I'd rather not see these defenses take anything more than a squad to deal with easily though, since one of the goals here is to require space to be used and defended in order to be held, and requiring a small death-ball of Battleships and Logi just to deal with one unmanned structure goes against that pretty heavily.
Specia1 K State War Academy Caldari State 44	Posted - 2015.03.25 00:35:38 - [2175] - Quote Cade Windstalker wrote: So, it sounds like we want an answer from CCP Fozzie and the rest of the dev team as to what kind of customization and defenses we're looking at on these sov structures, if any. They may not be willing to commit to anything there at this time though, since the structures rework is looking at being a ways in the future. Until we hear otherwise I think it's safer to assume that this system will have to survive on its own with the current structures for at least a few months. Besides which there's no guarantee that any sort of defenses would be able to reliably deal with a MWD inty at 200km. Personally I'd rather not see these defenses take anything more than a squad to deal with easily though, since one of the goals here is to require space to be used and defended in order to be held, and requiring a small death-ball of Battleships and Logi just to deal with one unmanned structure goes against that pretty heavily. MWD Inty cannot target past 150km, without command boosts. Within the range of damp/ecm ships like Keres or Kitsune. In fact, the 10s cycle time of the damps means that a single Keres could potentially neutralize a dozen or more cepters kiting with entosis links. You can even fit a Backup array in the lows and be nearly impossible to scan with probes while off grid. There are counters to the cepters. Only a larger and/or mixed fleet will defeat the defenders. Sounds like it is as intended (you need to show up to defend your space).
Marranar Amatin Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 0	Posted - 2015.03.25 00:46:24 - [2176] - 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.
Veskrashen Justified Chaos Spaceship Bebop 854	Posted - 2015.03.25 01:05:05 - [2177] - Quote 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? Also, sov warfare these days is either helldunk or blueball, with no in between. Opening up the envelope to a wide variety of fleet concepts would change that up, at least. 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. We Gallente have a saying: "CCP created the Gallente Militia to train the Fighters..."
Cade Windstalker Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra 312	Posted - 2015.03.25 01:25:53 - [2178] - Quote Specia1 K wrote: MWD Inty cannot target past 150km, without command boosts. Within the range of damp/ecm ships like Keres or Kitsune. In fact, the 10s cycle time of the damps means that a single Keres could potentially neutralize a dozen or more cepters kiting with entosis links. You can even fit a Backup array in the lows and be nearly impossible to scan with probes while off grid. There are counters to the cepters. Only a larger and/or mixed fleet will defeat the defenders. Sounds like it is as intended (you need to show up to defend your space). That's a fair point, but the problem here isn't so much that there aren't counters to interceptors trying to run Entosis Links it's that it's still fairly low risk to the attacking interceptor. Just because you can shut down their attack on the sov asset doesn't mean anyone wants to sit around for 3-4 hours waiting for a single harassing Interceptor to get bored and leave. The easy answer would seem to be making the enemy Interceptors vulnerable enough to chase down and kill within the time that they can't warp off. I'm not sure the current two minute timer on a T2 Entosis is sufficient for that but I also think it's needed for large fights to be survivable by an Entosis Link fitted ship. Maybe extend the warp lock past the timer, or let structures equip a super long range Point, so even if an enemy tries to harass with Interceptors or Frigates you can still catch them and kill them. In my experience Eve players will spend a good couple of hours playing cat and mouse so long as both the cat and the mouse think there's a decent chance of a kill happening but the game gets very boring and/or frustrating as soon as it becomes clear that one side isn't at significant risk (see, Station Games). Essentially all types of attacks that seem like reasonable fun to perform should both entail some material risk (as in, losing your ship) as well as be reasonably fun to defend against (aka you have a reasonable shot at getting a kill and not wasting your entire play session faffing about with enemy Inty's) Thoughts?
Specia1 K State War Academy Caldari State 44	Posted - 2015.03.25 02:11:58 - [2179] - Quote Cade Windstalker wrote: That's a fair point, but the problem here isn't so much that there aren't counters to interceptors trying to run Entosis Links it's that it's still fairly low risk to the attacking interceptor. Just because you can shut down their attack on the sov asset doesn't mean anyone wants to sit around for 3-4 hours waiting for a single harassing Interceptor to get bored and leave. The easy answer would seem to be making the enemy Interceptors vulnerable enough to chase down and kill within the time that they can't warp off. I'm not sure the current two minute timer on a T2 Entosis is sufficient for that but I also think it's needed for large fights to be survivable by an Entosis Link fitted ship. Maybe extend the warp lock past the timer, or let structures equip a super long range Point, so even if an enemy tries to harass with Interceptors or Frigates you can still catch them and kill them. In my experience Eve players will spend a good couple of hours playing cat and mouse so long as both the cat and the mouse think there's a decent chance of a kill happening but the game gets very boring and/or frustrating as soon as it becomes clear that one side isn't at significant risk (see, Station Games). Essentially all types of attacks that seem like reasonable fun to perform should both entail some material risk (as in, losing your ship) as well as be reasonably fun to defend against (aka you have a reasonable shot at getting a kill and not wasting your entire play session faffing about with enemy Inty's) Thoughts? I see your points. But I am inclined to think a lone interceptor will be nothing more than a mosquito. Combat is also about forcing your opponent to react to your tactics. As a defender, the ewar ships will do just that simply by being on grid or d-scan. A troll (or small gang of trolls) will know there is little chance at all to sov troll when they see ewar. As a result, I think you will see larger fleets and mixed fleets. If the attacker brings their own ewar, or mixes their fleet comps to actually engage, then combat will occur. I for one favor interaction between players/groups as a primary goal of any new mechanics. I think SOV should embody all of the elements of interaction like no other place in the game. It should be the pinnacle of conflict. Psychology is a weapon, as is economics. Denying your opposition their goals (while achieving your own) is true victory. Interaction does not always lead to conflict. Conflict is just one form of interaction. Conflict does not always lead to combat. Combat is just one form of conflict. A single diplomat can be more determinate than an entire fleet of warships. Then again, it's just a game...right?
Cade Windstalker Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra 313	Posted - 2015.03.25 02:43:58 - [2180] - Quote Specia1 K wrote: I see your points. But I am inclined to think a lone interceptor will be nothing more than a mosquito. Combat is also about forcing your opponent to react to your tactics. As a defender, the ewar ships will do just that simply by being on grid or d-scan. A troll (or small gang of trolls) will know there is little chance at all to sov troll when they see ewar. As a result, I think you will see larger fleets and mixed fleets. If the attacker brings their own ewar, or mixes their fleet comps to actually engage, then combat will occur. I for one favor interaction between players/groups as a primary goal of any new mechanics. I think SOV should embody all of the elements of interaction like no other place in the game. It should be the pinnacle of conflict. Psychology is a weapon, as is economics. Denying your opposition their goals (while achieving your own) is true victory. Interaction does not always lead to conflict. Conflict is just one form of interaction. Conflict does not always lead to combat. Combat is just one form of conflict. A single diplomat can be more determinate than an entire fleet of warships. Then again, it's just a game...right? It is just a game, and I think that's the operative thing to keep in mind. That's why, just to pluck a random example, cutting the power lines to the house your opponent lives in just to kill his Titan is taking things a little bit too far... It's also why CCP has a policy against harassment, despite that being a fairly valid tactic in a real-life armed conflict. While a single Inty may be a mosquito it's not like you can just completely ignore it either. Someone has to deal with the sov troll, and as anyone who has sat through a gate camp or a structure grinding fleet can attest, sitting around on your arse for 4 hours is not a lot of fun. I think the best thing I've ever heard said about the old structure grind is that it gave someone a chance to catch up on his TV shows, and that's something that should absolutely be avoided with the new Sov system. This means that a reacting fleet that's dealing with a threat to a populated system should be able to actually deal with the threat and not have to baby sit a Sov structure for hours on end unless the enemies are serious about trying to take it. Maybe this ends up meaning that they simply let their structures be reinforced without much of a fight, much like the current system has people often ignoring or lightly defending first timers on Structures and then actually defending during the scramble for capture points, since that's actually an active defense and actually ends the fight.

Specia1 K State War Academy Caldari State 44	Posted - 2015.03.25 03:31:26 - [2181] - Quote Cade Windstalker wrote: It is just a game, and I think that's the operative thing to keep in mind. That's why, just to pluck a random example, cutting the power lines to the house your opponent lives in just to kill his Titan is taking things a little bit too far... It's also why CCP has a policy against harassment, despite that being a fairly valid tactic in a real-life armed conflict. While a single Inty may be a mosquito it's not like you can just completely ignore it either. Someone has to deal with the sov troll, and as anyone who has sat through a gate camp or a structure grinding fleet can attest, sitting around on your arse for 4 hours is not a lot of fun. I think the best thing I've ever heard said about the old structure grind is that it gave someone a chance to catch up on his TV shows, and that's something that should absolutely be avoided with the new Sov system. This means that a reacting fleet that's dealing with a threat to a populated system should be able to actually deal with the threat and not have to baby sit a Sov structure for hours on end unless the enemies are serious about trying to take it. Maybe this ends up meaning that they simply let their structures be reinforced without much of a fight, much like the current system has people often ignoring or lightly defending first timers on Structures and then actually defending during the scramble for capture points, since that's actually an active defense and actually ends the fight. It is not the single ceptor that will have any real implications for anything but unguarded systems. You can park an alt in an ewar ship offgrid to deter that (while you do something else until you get a notification). You can respond long before any threat is realized, and the troll will simply find somewhere else to bite. It is the fleets of 50, or 500+ that will be the threat to nullsec. It is the potential to use the mechanics offered to cause widespread headaches for everyone, because the low cost/risk of trollfits. I think CCP is on the right track though. It encourages you to be the attacker, by virtue of dictating where and when the interactions takes place. And this is how I think it should go forward; offense drives content. Nullsec may very well burn to the ground, but player interaction will be at an all-time high. There will be so much going on, so many ships buzzing around and doing stuff! Whether or not the mechanics are abused, or actually pose new and interesting interactions will have to be seen. And compensated for. It will not be a time for the risk-adverse. You will be forced to be active and consolidate if you wish to keep what you have. Forced to coordinate with your team, and to confront your opposition proactively. I can imagine the desire for the new structures unveiled in the blogs! You may just have to hang on long enough for them to be realized. Wild times ahead.
Mario Putzo Welping and Dunking. 1129	Posted - 2015.03.25 03:39:21 - [2182] - Quote Jarnis McPieksu wrote: 99 times out of 100, a dessie comes and kills him. Op success. 1 times out of 100 people miss things, oops, bye bye space thingy. Attacker chooses when to push for entosis poke. Attacker chooses which entosis poke RFs to contest. Defender has to be there 100% of the time, or lose very expensive spacethingys. Attacker keeps tossing away expendable stuff repeatedly, waiting for that one day when the defender is fed up of having to go around whacking moles. Its a damn good thing that the defender has the choice of when the real engagement actually would take place then for that 1/100 time. Defender should be there 100% of the time...they should be actively engaged in their systems, be it mining, ratting, plexing, producing, whatever you want to do, and whatever will help build Occupancy Metrics to gain even more benefits for your time being in that space. And there is absolutely nothing stopping the defender from having their own folks doing the exact same thing to the other side. If NC. is sending Trollceptors into CFC space all day, then GSF can do the EXACT same thing right back at them in N3 space. You seriously need to broaden your scope of this away from one set of Xs and Os and look at the whole playing field, because anything one group can do another group can do. And if it is someone doing it that is not affiliated with any of the existing nullbear organizations...than good, that is EXACTLY what the system change is hoping to accomplish...if one guy can cause a large alliance enough grief, than that alliance shouldn't be holding as much assets as they do...it is as simple as that. Funny thing to recall your initial post. Current major sov holding entities in NS likely won't feel any pressure from individual pilots because they will be maximizing their occupancy metrics for better defense and better system value...entities that have nothing to gain from Occupancy Metrics such as PL will feel the greatest sting, because no longer will they be able to hold hideaways across a vast network of systems easily, and without consequence. No more long lasting forward poses housing supers/titans, because they will be unable to actively defend everything, which is good for the game of sov.
Lienzo Amanuensis 55	Posted - 2015.03.25 04:14:12 - [2183] - Quote Capital ships should have a role in the new sov system. At least, dreadnoughts should. Seige mode is a perfectly parallel module to entosis. No remote reps, can't warp, can't even move. Give it the entosis mechanic, and one is enough, and more dreads really makes no difference. The trick then is to distinguish them from subcap entosis. I would propose different restrictions on both of them. Ideally, we should promote harassment, but differentiate it from trolling. A focus on the periphery of player empires would give us that. Ideally, it should be next to impossible to knock over an ihub in sov 4 or 5 systems. However, flipping a low level sov system should be quite doable, and trivial without opposition. The lynchpin is changing how sov levels are achieved. Rather than just require time, require adjacency. To have a sov level two system, it must be surrounded by sov level 1 or higher systems. If one system drops to level 0, all adjacent systems drop to level 1. Up or down changes each take 24hrs to go into effect. Under such a system, sov 5 can be achieved in as little as two weeks, but it can come down in one week. This achieves the objectives of making not defending space a risky move, but move it into a campaign format rather than anywhere anytime format. This gives defenders some discretion when it comes to marginal buffer systems. It also gives campaign managers strategic focus on both sides. The more an empire sprawls, the more points of vulnerability it has. Subcap entosis should be viable in Sov 1 and 0 systems. In sov 0, timers are quick. Dreads should be able to engage entosis/siege in Sov 2 and lower systems, allowing them to expand the field or push harder for a capitol system. However, this should not come easily. With each ihub level, we allow the anchoring of five modules, one at each level, which each double the size of shields, doubles entosis time, doubles reinforcement timers and doubles the sensor strength of all deployables. These modules can be made vulnerable by entosis if the system is vulnerable. There is no such anchorable for sov 0 systems. All sov 1 systems have to have a claimed sov 0 system next to them, ensuring empire vulnerabilities to even the weakest forces. The base reinforcement time on sov 0 systems is now 12 hours. (This includes hostile deployables.) Ideally, contestation for sov anoms is a 23/7 process. It allows groups to push timers forward or backwards by up to 50%. In this way, an completely undefended system could drop in as little as 6 hours. Ideally, the number of sov anoms that spawn will be a dynamic, demand-dependent quantity, allowing for even the largest blobs to spread themselves infinitesimally. Every occupied anom should spawn two more within a quarter hour. In order to become more general combat ships, dreads need a tracking buff. They can maintain their massive target sigs, thereby relying on target painting ships (cough new minmatar BS), but the tracking issue has to be addressed for a flagship role. Titans, meanwhile, don't really need the ability to target subcaps, but they do need a counter logi effect built into their doomsdays. To sharpen the role of sov, we could even put out some new defender advantages. One could be a module, available only at high level sov, that strips motherships of their ewar immunity. Another could strip ships of their interdiction nullification. There was also a structure proposal for cloak interruption. These would affect all ships equally, obliging people to keep their warships across the Rubicon, but creating great risk for attackers thinking of knocking down really tall walls with the massed amounts of supercapitals they have stockpiled. It becomes more prudent to whittle away at an enemy. Hopefully, with the new deployables on the horizon, it also becomes profitable to whittle away at them as well. Perhaps it would be reasonable to make the more profitable deployables be too deficient in critical bonuses in capitol systems. That would ensure that profitable assets are located more closely to the periphery. That also requires that sov levels be more strictly a martial component, rather than one distributed between PVE and PVP. Manufacturing should be concurrent with martial sov upgrades, but all extraction and ratting should have an inverse dynamic.
Raphael Celestine Celestine Inc. 52	Posted - 2015.03.25 07:17:37 - [2184] - Quote Lienzo wrote: The lynchpin is changing how sov levels are achieved. Rather than just require time, require adjacency. To have a sov level two system, it must be surrounded by sov level 1 or higher systems. If one system drops to level 0, all adjacent systems drop to level 1. Up or down changes each take 24hrs to go into effect. This would create a hard minimum on territory size if you want access to all the benefits of holding sov - you must hold at least four systems in every direction from your HQ system, or you can't hit sov 5. Period. That's a bad thing. It might be unlikely that a small group will ever be able to take one or two systems and hold them for any length of time, but the mechanics should at least allow them to try - and if they do manage to pull it off, they should get exactly the same sov benefits as the big boys.
VolatileVoid ELVE Industries Shadow of xXDEATHXx 56	Posted - 2015.03.25 10:48:31 - [2185] - Quote Mario Putzo wrote: And there is absolutely nothing stopping the defender from having their own folks doing the exact same thing to the other side. If NC. is sending Trollceptors into CFC space all day, then GSF can do the EXACT same thing right back at them in N3 space. I read this again and again. As entosis links will be used mostly for trolling, how do you apply entosis links to npc space and lowsec?
Marranar Amatin Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 2	Posted - 2015.03.25 11:18:29 - [2186] - 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.
Xe'Cara'eos A Big Enough Lever 232	Posted - 2015.03.25 11:22:41 - [2187] - Quote as a potential counter to troll-ceptors - limit max velocity whilst using entosis link to 2.5km/s, this will not seriously affect anything bigger than a frig, and won't seriously hurt most frigs; it will, ofc be a major issue for the troll-ceptor, and allows a similar fit not using an entosis link to catch it 'relatively' easily also - what about forcing the ship using the entosis link from leaving the grid, even via just burning (I know it's artificial.... but it's the best I could think of) For posting an idea into F&I: come up with idea, try and think how people could abuse this, try to fix your idea - loop the process until you can't see how it could be abused, then post to the forums to let us figure out how to abuse it..... If your idea can be abused, it [u]WILL[/u] be.
Marranar Amatin Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 2	Posted - 2015.03.25 12:15:19 - [2188] - 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.
afkalt Republic Military School Minmatar Republic 969	Posted - 2015.03.25 12:24:35 - [2189] - Quote Or dont bother and use the legions of cyno alts to counter link the structure? Or let it sit on the timer until near the end and waste its time then contest it yourself. Why are we still freaking out about this non-problem? There are many and varied ways to neuter this, we're smart people - we've probably not even found the best one yet.
Marranar Amatin Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 2	Posted - 2015.03.25 12:28:53 - [2190] - 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.

afkalt Republic Military School Minmatar Republic 970	Posted - 2015.03.25 13:30:36 - [2191] - Quote If they're serious about contesting sov, it WILL generate fights. 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. Small fast craft could be considered a vanguard - penetration testing. But when it comes to the crunch, it wont be frigates contesting sov. Not by a long shot.
Marranar Amatin Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 2	Posted - 2015.03.25 13:38:20 - [2192] - 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.
afkalt Republic Military School Minmatar Republic 970	Posted - 2015.03.25 13:58:34 - [2193] - Quote Remember there are warm bodies on both sides. The attacker wastes more time than the defender in all used systems. I suspect this will go the way of the siphons - remember how so many of those were going to be deployed they'd blot out the sun.....or uh...not as actually transpired. These will hit an equilibrium over (a fairly short time) and heavy trolling will not really happen. Most likely I see the harassment being a tool for roaming gangs to force the locals to respond. I could be wrong, but there's a lot of heavy agendas in play here, hell bent on being able to defend space by not being there.
Marranar Amatin Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 2	Posted - 2015.03.25 14:21:52 - [2194] - 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.
Kagura Nikon Mentally Assured Destruction The Pursuit of Happiness 2028	Posted - 2015.03.25 14:30:01 - [2195] - Quote VolatileVoid wrote: Mario Putzo wrote: And there is absolutely nothing stopping the defender from having their own folks doing the exact same thing to the other side. If NC. is sending Trollceptors into CFC space all day, then GSF can do the EXACT same thing right back at them in N3 space. I read this again and again. As entosis links will be used mostly for trolling, how do you apply entosis links to npc space and lowsec? You could start by reading all dev blogs. ALL structures will be changed, and all will be afftected by entosis. Including the ones that will be deployed in low sec and NPC space to replace the POS, since outposts will NOT BE ABLE TO MANUFACTURE! So yup, NPC space will be less risky.. but not riskless. "If brute force does not solve your problem.... then you are surely not using enough!" For the rest hire PoH \| Recruitment
VolatileVoid ELVE Industries Shadow of xXDEATHXx 57	Posted - 2015.03.25 15:22:29 - [2196] - Quote Kagura Nikon wrote: VolatileVoid wrote: Mario Putzo wrote: And there is absolutely nothing stopping the defender from having their own folks doing the exact same thing to the other side. If NC. is sending Trollceptors into CFC space all day, then GSF can do the EXACT same thing right back at them in N3 space. I read this again and again. As entosis links will be used mostly for trolling, how do you apply entosis links to npc space and lowsec? You could start by reading all dev blogs. ALL structures will be changed, and all will be afftected by entosis. Including the ones that will be deployed in low sec and NPC space to replace the POS, since outposts will NOT BE ABLE TO MANUFACTURE! So yup, NPC space will be less risky.. but not riskless. Then tell me how to apply the entosis link to the npc stations where the pirates hide to let them undock. Do you even read what you write?
Cade Windstalker Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra 313	Posted - 2015.03.25 16:33:19 - [2197] - Quote VolatileVoid wrote: Then tell me how to apply the entosis link to the npc stations where the pirates hide to let them undock. Do you even read what you write? Nothing about the Entosis Link system is going to force anyone to undock anywhere. You can capture the place where they have docked but you don't get to spit a docked ship out so you can kill the ship and pod the pilot. NPC stations are safer but provide fewer benefits compared to player structures, including restrictions on access and the ability to be placed where you need them. If you don't need those benefits then using an NPC station for the increased security is fine and intended by the new system.
Cade Windstalker Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra 313	Posted - 2015.03.25 16:38:53 - [2198] - Quote 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?
Mario Putzo Welping and Dunking. 1130	Posted - 2015.03.25 16:53:19 - [2199] - Quote VolatileVoid wrote: Kagura Nikon wrote: VolatileVoid wrote: Mario Putzo wrote: And there is absolutely nothing stopping the defender from having their own folks doing the exact same thing to the other side. If NC. is sending Trollceptors into CFC space all day, then GSF can do the EXACT same thing right back at them in N3 space. I read this again and again. As entosis links will be used mostly for trolling, how do you apply entosis links to npc space and lowsec? You could start by reading all dev blogs. ALL structures will be changed, and all will be afftected by entosis. Including the ones that will be deployed in low sec and NPC space to replace the POS, since outposts will NOT BE ABLE TO MANUFACTURE! So yup, NPC space will be less risky.. but not riskless. Then tell me how to apply the entosis link to the npc stations where the pirates hide to let them undock. Do you even read what you write? Im not quite sure what your issue is here. If someone is docked up their threat level against you is at its near absolute minimum, outside being logged off. If someone is docked, they can't be out entosis linking your stuff, congrats you can go back to doing whatever activity you were doing previously, or you can just camp them into station as punishment for trolling you, no fun allowed! And if defending your assets is to much effort, you can always abandon your ****.
Marranar Amatin Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 4	Posted - 2015.03.25 17:14:25 - [2200] - 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.

Mario Putzo Welping and Dunking. 1130	Posted - 2015.03.25 17:29:18 - [2201] - Quote Marranar Amatin wrote: 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. Or just have one dude put a counter entosis on the structure in question. I am sure someone in your organization has a cyno alt that can do this freeing up his main to do whatever the **** he wants....
afkalt Republic Military School Minmatar Republic 971	Posted - 2015.03.25 17:39:43 - [2202] - Quote Or run it down and kill it in a 10mn T3 destroyer. PS: The caldari one will be picture perfect for this, by the way. No the "problem" here is that people don't want to have to commit an equivalent ship to defence as the attacker does. They don't want to have to live in the space they own and they want to dig big moats and pull up the bridges via gate camps. They want to maintain the status quo or bring bigger guns and more of them. They paint a spectre of a mythical ship that will barely see the light of day this time next year and will not be used to contest sov in any meaningful way provided (and this is the sticking point) people live in the space they own.
Cade Windstalker Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra 313	Posted - 2015.03.25 17:45:13 - [2203] - Quote Mario Putzo wrote: Or just have one dude put a counter entosis on the structure in question. I am sure someone in your organization has a cyno alt that can do this freeing up his main to do whatever the ** he wants.... I don't feel like "bring an alt or be bored" is good gameplay. There is gameplay that emerges through alts and is enabled by them, and that needs to be taken into account here, but I think that "bring an alt and multi-box or be bored for 4 hours" is a good solution here. Not when other potential solutions exist. Marranar Amatin wrote:** 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. I don't think the one to one requirement is realistic or needed, since this is sov space and if you can only muster one guy on defense then you deserve to lose your space. Besides you won't know what the enemy has on grid until you show up to check. The notification you get will (if past notification are any indication) simply show you that something is being attacked along with the timer until it's captured. The bigger thing here is that you should have some ability to end the threat, even if it takes you a bit of effort and a few people to do it. This means that the Inty pilot harassing needs to be at some risk for doing so, rather than being able to simply kite around for the 1-2 minutes needed for his cycle to finish and then warping off. It seems to me there are a number of ways to do this: Put active AI controlled defenses on all SOV structures. Put some kind of penalties on an active Entosis Link that make targets attempting to kite easier to catch. Put some kind of penalties or effect on the space around Sov targets that makes attacking them riskier, especially for small or fast attackers. Put some kind of restriction on attacking Sov targets that makes harassing/annoyance attacks less viable. Each of these has its own drawbacks and benefits, but I think that covers the range of options fairly thoroughly.
Mario Putzo Welping and Dunking. 1130	Posted - 2015.03.25 18:04:21 - [2204] - Quote Cade Windstalker wrote: It seems to me there are a number of ways to do this: Put active AI controlled defenses on all SOV structures. Put some kind of penalties on an active Entosis Link that make targets attempting to kite easier to catch. Put some kind of penalties or effect on the space around Sov targets that makes attacking them riskier, especially for small or fast attackers. Put some kind of restriction on attacking Sov targets that makes harassing/annoyance attacks less viable. Each of these has its own drawbacks and benefits, but I think that covers the range of options fairly thoroughly. Right expecting someone to defend with either and alt or a main is bad for emergent gameplay...so lets automate the defense so we can avoid that... If trollceptors are the worst issue people have with this system...why wait until June to release it.
FT Diomedes The Graduates Forged of Fire 910	Posted - 2015.03.25 18:10:46 - [2205] - Quote I posted this over in the main thread, but I am curious to see people's thoughts specifically as it relates to the issues associated with destroying things via Entosis. One of the things that has bothered me the most about the proposed sovereignty system is that it allows small, non-committal entities to destroy valuable things without committing very much of their own to the fight. With destructible stations coming SoonTM, this is particularly troubling. In light of that, I suggest the following compromise. Entosis can be used to capture a structure. Thus, if I go into your system and run my Entosis link on your I-Hub and you do not stop me by chasing me away or blowing up my ship, it generates the standard timers as proposed by Fozzie. Forty-eight hours later, we have the multi-node Entosis capture point battles (or you blue ball me). If I win, I keep my stuff. Under the proposed system, "If the attackers win a capture event for a Territorial Claim Unit or Infrastructure Hub, then the structure explodes and any alliance will be free to attempt deploying of their own replacement structures." Now, here is my suggestion: "If the attackers win a capture event for a Territorial Claim Unit or Infrastructure Hub, then the structure becomes vulnerable to capture, theft, or destruction." A vulnerable structure may be captured when any alliance/corporation runs one Entosis cycle on it, at any time (no prime time window). Once captured, the structure belongs to that alliance and becomes vulnerable again during the next day's prime time for the capturing alliance. The captured structure retains the indices and other advantages earned by the previous owner[s]. A vulnerable structure may be stolen when any player scoops the structure into the cargo hold of his ship. Structures too large to fit into a ship cannot be stolen. Once scooped, the structure loses the indices and other advantages earned by the previous owner[s]. A vulnerable structure can be destroyed at any time, provided someone is willing to shoot at it long enough or bring enough [big] ships to do the job quickly. While there are no reinforcement timers, the structures all have a significant amount of hit points. In the event of destruction, the structure loss mail will belong to the last alliance/corporation to own the structure. I think that is a reasonable compromise. What say you? Advantages over the current proposal: 1. It still gives attackers a way to make people undock and fight to defend their space. 2. It requires real commitment to actually destroy any structure. 3. It preserves a role for Dreadnoughts and other big ships in the destruction of structures. 4. It allows for more emergent gameplay and player interaction. 5. Assuming that some structures are the right size, it could allow for some interesting choices regarding Freighters and Jump Freighters. I see no disadvantages of this system versus the current proposal. The Greatest Ship Ever. Credit to Shahfluffers.
Aureus Ahishatsu Deadspace Knights 86	Posted - 2015.03.25 21:14:14 - [2206] - Quote I'll post this hear since I already mentioned it in the wormhole forums. how (if at all) are wh dwellers supposed to defend their structures if they can all be reinforced in the minimal time since we cannot claim sov? Wh dwellers aren't going to stick around if every structure can be re'fed in only 10 minutes.
Rowells ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans 2167	Posted - 2015.03.25 21:21:30 - [2207] - Quote Aureus Ahishatsu wrote: I'll post this hear since I already mentioned it in the wormhole forums. how (if at all) are wh dwellers supposed to defend their structures if they can all be reinforced in the minimal time since we cannot claim sov? Wh dwellers aren't going to stick around if every structure can be re'fed in only 10 minutes. good luck getting to the other capture points in the constellation.
scorchlikeshiswhiskey Totally Abstract O X I D E 382	Posted - 2015.03.25 21:40:53 - [2208] - Quote Aureus Ahishatsu wrote: I'll post this hear since I already mentioned it in the wormhole forums. how (if at all) are wh dwellers supposed to defend their structures if they can all be reinforced in the minimal time since we cannot claim sov? Wh dwellers aren't going to stick around if every structure can be re'fed in only 10 minutes. I too have come here, since the Devs avoid the lowly WH section like the swinebirdebolafluplague, to ask whether there will be any real difference between WH's and null once the structures are integrated. Will my group have to have someone online 23.5/7 to prevent a 10 minute takeover of our assets by the dwellers of a K-hole? Why 10 minutes you ask, well since Sov is verboten! in J-space, as far as I can tell that would make the RF timer for WH structures 10 minutes with any Entosis linked Astero-sleeper that has been lurking in your system doing nothing meaningful besides probing every once in a while. Combine that with null sec, of all places, being able to manipulate WH spawn behaviors and and being able to plant structures that might enable local chat behaviors and, so far at least, it seems like WH's are being turned into null. (Makes it easier for Goon-alts to farm though, so there's that.) Now I will set aside my thinly veiled discontent and ask the question that I would like answered, preferably, by a Dev (although I will be content with CSM if that's all I can get): How will these new structures behave in wormholes and what changes do you foresee them causing in the social, and quality of, life in wormholes? I have confined myself to a single question in the hopes that it might get answered instead of an even longer rant or a wall of questions. Also, I understand that these structures are still being designed so their mechanics might not be carved in digi-stone. Here's hoping....
Kagura Nikon Mentally Assured Destruction The Pursuit of Happiness 2028	Posted - 2015.03.25 22:48:04 - [2209] - Quote VolatileVoid wrote: Kagura Nikon wrote: VolatileVoid wrote: Mario Putzo wrote: And there is absolutely nothing stopping the defender from having their own folks doing the exact same thing to the other side. If NC. is sending Trollceptors into CFC space all day, then GSF can do the EXACT same thing right back at them in N3 space. I read this again and again. As entosis links will be used mostly for trolling, how do you apply entosis links to npc space and lowsec? You could start by reading all dev blogs. ALL structures will be changed, and all will be afftected by entosis. Including the ones that will be deployed in low sec and NPC space to replace the POS, since outposts will NOT BE ABLE TO MANUFACTURE! So yup, NPC space will be less risky.. but not riskless. Then tell me how to apply the entosis link to the npc stations where the pirates hide to let them undock. Do you even read what you write? I did, but you on other hand is clearly unable to do so. I never said that you will aply them to the NPC outposts. Try again.. read it.. i know it might hurt your head, byt if 6 year olds can do it, so can you. PEOPLE LIVING IN NPC STATION WILL NEED TO DEPLOY THEIR OWN STRUCTURES!! BECAUSE THEY WILL NOT BE ABLE TO BUILD ANYTHIGN ON OUTPOSTS. IS that so HARD to read? "If brute force does not solve your problem.... then you are surely not using enough!" For the rest hire PoH \| Recruitment
kidkoma KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 24	Posted - 2015.03.25 23:23:35 - [2210] - Quote Can I have the fitting requirements plz.

Nolak Ataru KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 796	Posted - 2015.03.25 23:38:55 - [2211] - Quote After spending a day bashing towers and contemplating life choices, I can say for certain HP sov > entosis sov.
Raphael Celestine Celestine Inc. 53	Posted - 2015.03.25 23:47:44 - [2212] - Quote scorchlikeshiswhiskey wrote: How will these new structures behave in wormholes and what changes do you foresee them causing in the social, and quality of, life in wormholes? I have confined myself to a single question in the hopes that it might get answered instead of an even longer rant or a wall of questions. Also, I understand that these structures are still being designed so their mechanics might not be carved in digi-stone. Here's hoping.... Page one of the Observatory Arrays & Gates thread has this: CCP Ytterbium wrote: elitatwo wrote: Can some of them be placed in wormhole space? We are planning on some of the structure to be placed in W-space yes, the exact type and numbers are up to discussion based on the gameplay consequences they are going to have there. It all depends if we feel they're going to negatively impact this area of space or spice up gameplay. Edit: and I'm referring to all the structures here, not only Observatory Arrays and Gates. I feel like I've seen a dev explicitly say something about 'consulting WH groups' before deciding what wil/won't get into WHs as well, but I can't find it right now. I don't think there's any hard info on exactly how WHs are going to be affected - things are still pretty early in the development process, so everything's still subject to change - but the devs at least remember that you guys exist and that this will affect you.
FT Diomedes The Graduates Forged of Fire 910	Posted - 2015.03.26 00:48:27 - [2213] - Quote Kagura Nikon wrote: VolatileVoid wrote: Kagura Nikon wrote: VolatileVoid wrote: Mario Putzo wrote: And there is absolutely nothing stopping the defender from having their own folks doing the exact same thing to the other side. If NC. is sending Trollceptors into CFC space all day, then GSF can do the EXACT same thing right back at them in N3 space. I read this again and again. As entosis links will be used mostly for trolling, how do you apply entosis links to npc space and lowsec? You could start by reading all dev blogs. ALL structures will be changed, and all will be afftected by entosis. Including the ones that will be deployed in low sec and NPC space to replace the POS, since outposts will NOT BE ABLE TO MANUFACTURE! So yup, NPC space will be less risky.. but not riskless. Then tell me how to apply the entosis link to the npc stations where the pirates hide to let them undock. Do you even read what you write? I did, but you on other hand is clearly unable to do so. I never said that you will aply them to the NPC outposts. Try again.. read it.. i know it might hurt your head, byt if 6 year olds can do it, so can you. PEOPLE LIVING IN NPC STATION WILL NEED TO DEPLOY THEIR OWN STRUCTURES!! BECAUSE THEY WILL NOT BE ABLE TO BUILD ANYTHIGN ON OUTPOSTS. IS that so HARD to read? And they cannot purchase anything in high sec and import it? The Greatest Ship Ever. Credit to Shahfluffers.
Cade Windstalker Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra 313	Posted - 2015.03.26 01:28:51 - [2214] - Quote Mario Putzo wrote: Right expecting someone to defend with either and alt or a main is bad for emergent gameplay...so lets automate the defense so we can avoid that... If trollceptors are the worst issue people have with this system...why wait until June to release it. No one is saying that people shouldn't be expected to defend their space. What people are saying is that the enemy should have to risk something, as in have a reasonable chance of getting blown up, in order to attack the opponent's Sov structures. Right now, with the information we have, the general consensus seems to be that an Interceptor is going to be at only slightly more risk of being blown up harassing Sov than it is sitting in station in Jita. Possibly less risk if there's a cat in the house of the player in question, and the fuzzy thing happens to hit the undock button. FT Diomedes wrote: STUFF... Under the proposed system, "If the attackers win a capture event for a Territorial Claim Unit or Infrastructure Hub, then the structure explodes and any alliance will be free to attempt deploying of their own replacement structures." Now, here is my suggestion: "If the attackers win a capture event for a Territorial Claim Unit or Infrastructure Hub, then the structure becomes vulnerable to capture, theft, or destruction." ...STUFF... I think that is a reasonable compromise. What say you? Advantages over the current proposal: 1. It still gives attackers a way to make people undock and fight to defend their space. 2. It requires real commitment to actually destroy any structure. 3. It preserves a role for Dreadnoughts and other big ships in the destruction of structures. 4. It allows for more emergent gameplay and player interaction. 5. Assuming that some structures are the right size, it could allow for some interesting choices regarding Freighters and Jump Freighters. I see no disadvantages of this system versus the current proposal. One, why in the crap, when we have a capital re-balance coming along with this stuff, would we want to preserve a gameplay element that I've most often heard described as "a chance to catch up on my TV watching". Shooting structures is boring and the only possible advantage to preserving it for the purpose of destroying these structures is allowing stronger players to more thoroughly crush weaker ones. Letting people cap a structure with a further Entosis cycle on the thing doesn't make much sense either and would seem to just open things up to trolling and "defeat from the jaws of victory" plays. That's not emergent gameplay, it's just a way to make whatever epic fight just happened meaningless. That's a bad technique when writers do it in fiction, I don't see a compelling argument for having it happen in Eve. Also that "real commitment" is part of what CCP are trying to remove, because structure shooting is boring and requires you to maintain a massive cap fleet just to become part of the sov game. Lastly, having capture over destruction be the default removes an important resource sink from the game, so another strike against it there.
Specia1 K State War Academy Caldari State 44	Posted - 2015.03.26 02:47:31 - [2215] - Quote Cade Windstalker wrote: ...the general consensus seems to be that an Interceptor is going to be at only slightly more risk of being blown up harassing Sov than it is sitting in station in Jita... It is not the consensus in this thread. Disingenuous comments like this negate your whole argument and demonstrate your lack of experience and knowledge in this discussion. "No one is saying..." What people are saying..." the general consensus..." "heard described as..." "what CCP are trying to..." pls, listen to yourself "That's a bad technique when writers do it...." You have made some good arguments in previous posts, btw.
FT Diomedes The Graduates Forged of Fire 910	Posted - 2015.03.26 03:48:24 - [2216] - Quote Cade Windstalker wrote: Mario Putzo wrote: Right expecting someone to defend with either and alt or a main is bad for emergent gameplay...so lets automate the defense so we can avoid that... If trollceptors are the worst issue people have with this system...why wait until June to release it. No one is saying that people shouldn't be expected to defend their space. What people are saying is that the enemy should have to risk something, as in have a reasonable chance of getting blown up, in order to attack the opponent's Sov structures. Right now, with the information we have, the general consensus seems to be that an Interceptor is going to be at only slightly more risk of being blown up harassing Sov than it is sitting in station in Jita. Possibly less risk if there's a cat in the house of the player in question, and the fuzzy thing happens to hit the undock button. FT Diomedes wrote: STUFF... Under the proposed system, "If the attackers win a capture event for a Territorial Claim Unit or Infrastructure Hub, then the structure explodes and any alliance will be free to attempt deploying of their own replacement structures." Now, here is my suggestion: "If the attackers win a capture event for a Territorial Claim Unit or Infrastructure Hub, then the structure becomes vulnerable to capture, theft, or destruction." ...STUFF... I think that is a reasonable compromise. What say you? Advantages over the current proposal: 1. It still gives attackers a way to make people undock and fight to defend their space. 2. It requires real commitment to actually destroy any structure. 3. It preserves a role for Dreadnoughts and other big ships in the destruction of structures. 4. It allows for more emergent gameplay and player interaction. 5. Assuming that some structures are the right size, it could allow for some interesting choices regarding Freighters and Jump Freighters. I see no disadvantages of this system versus the current proposal. One, why in the crap, when we have a capital re-balance coming along with this stuff, would we want to preserve a gameplay element that I've most often heard described as "a chance to catch up on my TV watching". Shooting structures is boring and the only possible advantage to preserving it for the purpose of destroying these structures is allowing stronger players to more thoroughly crush weaker ones. Letting people cap a structure with a further Entosis cycle on the thing doesn't make much sense either and would seem to just open things up to trolling and "defeat from the jaws of victory" plays. That's not emergent gameplay, it's just a way to make whatever epic fight just happened meaningless. That's a bad technique when writers do it in fiction, I don't see a compelling argument for having it happen in Eve. Also that "real commitment" is part of what CCP are trying to remove, because structure shooting is boring and requires you to maintain a massive cap fleet just to become part of the sov game. Lastly, having capture over destruction be the default removes an important resource sink from the game, so another strike against it there. I find shooting structures in subcapitals to be very boring. I find it quite exciting when I have Dreadnoughts and/or Supercapitals, in Siege mode, and committed to the fight. The Greatest Ship Ever. Credit to Shahfluffers.
Mario Putzo Welping and Dunking. 1130	Posted - 2015.03.26 04:17:06 - [2217] - Quote Cade Windstalker wrote: Mario Putzo wrote: Right expecting someone to defend with either and alt or a main is bad for emergent gameplay...so lets automate the defense so we can avoid that... If trollceptors are the worst issue people have with this system...why wait until June to release it. No one is saying that people shouldn't be expected to defend their space. What people are saying is that the enemy should have to risk something, as in have a reasonable chance of getting blown up, in order to attack the opponent's Sov structures. Right now, with the information we have, the general consensus seems to be that an Interceptor is going to be at only slightly more risk of being blown up harassing Sov than it is sitting in station in Jita. Possibly less risk if there's a cat in the house of the player in question, and the fuzzy thing happens to hit the undock button. They are risking something, and perhaps even more of an investment, spending time playing chicken and time is the single most valuable commodity in EVE, as it is in life. Just because you don't agree on the value of the risk does not mean there is not risk. But lets take a break complaining about trollceptors, which is a bottom of the barrel argument and talk about the only actual issue with FozzieSov. While not directly about Entosis Links (which are perfectly fine as they are drawn up currently) it is the result of successful usage I think that the discussion is meritable within this thread. Having a Random 4 hour window is a poor design, because it allows a group of people to essentially force people to stand around with their thumb in their ass doing nothing for 4 hours (if they choose to defend an asset). As I said earlier time is the most valuable commodity in the game, and having an unadjustable 4 hour window where nothing at all could happen is bad. Who wants to sit around for 4 hours doing nothing. No one. Since CCP has stated that they desire constellation control to be more influential and more desirable than I believe the following should be a precedent within Occupancy based metrics. The Average System Tier (rounded down) within a constellation should provide groups controlling that space with a benefit that helps them decrease that 4 hour window. Unbeknownst to the instigators of course. In laymans terms, the higher the average Constellation Tier the smaller the Reinforce window becomes. / Average system tier is of course the average of all systems within a constellation if you have a constellation of 5 systems Sys 1 = T3 Sys 2 = T1 Sys 3 = T3 Sys 4 = T5 Sys 5 = T5 Your constellation Average would be 5+5+3+3+1/5 = 3.4> 3 With benefits of the average as follows Average T1 = No benefit (4 Hour Window) Average T2 = 3 Hour Window Average T3 = 2 Hour Window Average T4 = 1 Hour Window Average T5 = Exact Timer. For the above 5 system constellation you would wind up with an average of T3, and resulting within a 2 hour window around your predetermined exit timer. / So when a defender picks their exit time the higher their System Tiers within a constellation will allow them to have a much more precise window in which they can defend in. This essentially diffuses any trolling in the end outcome the more you make use of your space, but still allows for trolling to effectively cause groups to pay attention to their space in the overall. Allowing ultimately for the defender to know exactly when he must show up to defend his stuff, instead of spending multiple hours waiting for RNG to determine that. This reinforces people living in various areas of space because it encourages maximizing the system tiers of every system within a constellation. Of all the complaining about trollceptors, this is the only relevant issue, the 4 hour random window...which should become more manageable for the defender the more his space is utilized. Attackers however will not be notified of the exit timer, and instead be held to the 4 hour random window. This means if an attacked is serious about taking an asset they must land and take the grid and hold it for up to 4 hours, while the defender can show up with a defensive fleet and have the knowledge of what the attacker is fielding before hand. So while instigating is heavily favored for the attacker, the defender ultimately holds the advantages when the cards must be put on the table...If they are using all of their space. FT Diomedes wrote: I find shooting structures in subcapitals to be very boring. I find it quite exciting when I have Dreadnoughts and/or Supercapitals, in Siege mode, and committed to the fight. There is absolutely nothing stopping you from committing Capitals and Super Capitals to a fight in FozzieSov. Of course fighting ships and fighting structures is a much different risk, and most folks will shy away from fielding their big toys against things that will shoot back and actually try to kill them.
Lienzo Amanuensis 55	Posted - 2015.03.26 05:51:04 - [2218] - Quote Raphael Celestine wrote: Lienzo wrote: The lynchpin is changing how sov levels are achieved. Rather than just require time, require adjacency. To have a sov level two system, it must be surrounded by sov level 1 or higher systems. If one system drops to level 0, all adjacent systems drop to level 1. Up or down changes each take 24hrs to go into effect. This would create a hard minimum on territory size if you want access to all the benefits of holding sov - you must hold at least four systems in every direction from your HQ system, or you can't hit sov 5. Period. That's a bad thing. It might be unlikely that a small group will ever be able to take one or two systems and hold them for any length of time, but the mechanics should at least allow them to try - and if they do manage to pull it off, they should get exactly the same sov benefits as the big boys. As I mentioned, there should be negative consequences to built-up sov, just the same as the empires endure. In this case, extractive activities and PVE suffers, pushing those activities to the periphery. If it's bad for their ability to gain potentially not very useful capital ships, then at least it should be good for their wallets in the meantime. Ideally, anchoring shipyards and such in low sov systems should be possible, only risky. It's isn't likely that small groups will be able to hold a Sov 5 system for a month without external support, especially as it is such a red flag in the current environment, or any future one. In addition, pocket constellations should be extremely advantageous for creating player capitol systems in short spans of time.
Aiyshimin Fistful of Finns Triumvirate. 493	Posted - 2015.03.26 11:13:29 - [2219] - Quote FT Diomedes wrote: I posted this over in the main thread, but I am curious to see people's thoughts specifically as it relates to the issues associated with destroying things via Entosis. One of the things that has bothered me the most about the proposed sovereignty system is that it allows small, non-committal entities to destroy valuable things without committing very much of their own to the fight. With destructible stations coming SoonTM, this is particularly troubling. In light of that, I suggest the following compromise. In the proposed system, f I go into your system and run my Entosis link on your I-Hub and you do not stop me by chasing me away or blowing up my ship, it generates the standard timers as proposed by Fozzie. Forty-eight hours later, we have the multi-node Entosis capture point battles (or you blue ball me). If I win, I keep my stuff. Under the proposed system, "If the attackers win a capture event for a Territorial Claim Unit or Infrastructure Hub, then the structure explodes and any alliance will be free to attempt deploying of their own replacement structures." Now, here is my suggestion: "If the attackers win a capture event for a Territorial Claim Unit or Infrastructure Hub, then the structure becomes vulnerable to capture, theft, or destruction." A vulnerable structure may be captured when any alliance/corporation runs one Entosis cycle on it, at any time (no prime time window). Once captured, the structure belongs to that alliance and becomes vulnerable again during the next day's prime time for the capturing alliance. The captured structure retains the indices and other advantages earned by the previous owner[s]. A vulnerable structure may be stolen when any player scoops the structure into the cargo hold of his ship. Structures too large to fit into a ship cannot be stolen. Once scooped, the structure loses the indices and other advantages earned by the previous owner[s]. A vulnerable structure can be destroyed at any time, provided someone is willing to shoot at it long enough or bring enough [big] ships to do the job quickly. While there are no reinforcement timers, the structures all have a significant amount of hit points. In the event of destruction, the structure loss mail will belong to the last alliance/corporation to own the structure. I think that is a reasonable compromise. What say you? Advantages over the current proposal: 1. It still gives attackers a way to make people undock and fight to defend their space. 2. It requires real commitment to actually destroy any structure. 3. It preserves a role for Dreadnoughts and other big ships in the destruction of structures. 4. It allows for more emergent gameplay and player interaction. 5. Assuming that some structures are the right size, it could allow for some interesting choices regarding Freighters and Jump Freighters. I see no disadvantages of this system versus the current proposal. Except it completely nullifies the change by once again creating the need to bring a massive blob of caps and supers for the final grind. Which is what you probably want to achieve anyway.
Raphael Celestine Celestine Inc. 53	Posted - 2015.03.26 11:21:48 - [2220] - Quote Lienzo wrote: Raphael Celestine wrote: Lienzo wrote: The lynchpin is changing how sov levels are achieved. Rather than just require time, require adjacency. To have a sov level two system, it must be surrounded by sov level 1 or higher systems. If one system drops to level 0, all adjacent systems drop to level 1. Up or down changes each take 24hrs to go into effect. This would create a hard minimum on territory size if you want access to all the benefits of holding sov - you must hold at least four systems in every direction from your HQ system, or you can't hit sov 5. Period. That's a bad thing. It might be unlikely that a small group will ever be able to take one or two systems and hold them for any length of time, but the mechanics should at least allow them to try - and if they do manage to pull it off, they should get exactly the same sov benefits as the big boys. As I mentioned, there should be negative consequences to built-up sov, just the same as the empires endure. In this case, extractive activities and PVE suffers, pushing those activities to the periphery. If it's bad for their ability to gain potentially not very useful capital ships, then at least it should be good for their wallets in the meantime. Ideally, anchoring shipyards and such in low sov systems should be possible, only risky. It's isn't likely that small groups will be able to hold a Sov 5 system for a month without external support, especially as it is such a red flag in the current environment, or any future one. In addition, pocket constellations should be extremely advantageous for creating player capitol systems in short spans of time. Like I said, I fully realise that one- or two-system pocket kingdoms are an unlikely scenario. But a single-constellation empire will still fall well short of the 'four systems in every direction' benchmark in most cases, as will a fair number of two-constellation empires. Even if it doesn't make Sov useless, losing the ability to build up to sov 5 still means that small holders only get part of the options that the serious players do. The whole point of sov null is to allow players to build their own empires, after all, and the ability to upgrade your space is an important part of that: for symbolic reasons as much as hard mechanical advantages. It doesn't matter if no minor kingdom like this ever manages to get past sov 1, the possibility should still be there for people to aspire to. It's also worth bearing in mind that the whole thing does become rather more plausible with external support, and could be a valid use-case. Client states have a long history, after all. Secondly, while I do think there's potential in the idea of tradeoffs between high- and low sov, taking away the ability for some groups to get high sov indices at all starts to limit the available game design options in unfortunate ways. In particular, you can no longer tie the most powerful tools to high sov. Not only do shipyards have to be available in low sov, so do top-end Observatory Array and Gate features, and Admin and Market Hub options, otherwise you're right back to having a hard minimum on viable empire size. (Also, we can't jump to the conclusion that less effective access to capital ships won't be a problem. Current version capital ships won't be particularly useful, true, but CCP have made it clear that they still plan to make sure that caps and supercaps still have a role to play long-term.) Don't get me wrong, I don't think there's anything wrong with the basic premise of encouraging raiding on the outskirts and discouraging it in the heartlands of empires. I just think that it needs to be implemented in a way that scales down further than this particular mechanic does. (Perhaps the difficulty of raiding could be directly dependant on the distance to the border, instead of linking sov level to distance and then difficulty to sov?)

FT Diomedes The Graduates Forged of Fire 912	Posted - 2015.03.26 13:45:27 - [2221] - Quote Mario Putzo wrote: FT Diomedes wrote: I find shooting structures in subcapitals to be very boring. I find it quite exciting when I have Dreadnoughts and/or Supercapitals, in Siege mode, and committed to the fight. There is absolutely nothing stopping you from committing Capitals and Super Capitals to a fight in FozzieSov. Of course fighting ships and fighting structures is a much different risk, and most folks will shy away from fielding their big toys against things that will shoot back and actually try to kill them. If you cannot be bothered to come attack my 2 billion ISK Dreadnoughts, who are stuck in siege mode and cannot run away at all, then perhaps you don't deserve to hold your space? See what I did there? When people commit Dreadnoughts, they are throwing down a 2B ISK asset and saying, "come at me, bro." Fighting structures with Dreadnoughts requires way more balls than bringing your kiting fleet and orbiting some structure while waiting to see what shows up (and burning off grid if you cannot handle it). You know full and well that unless I am part of a blob the size of CFC, there is no way I am able to field the five fleets of capital ships which would be required to successfully employ capitals in Trollsov. Not to mention the 400% time increase for using capitals. So, no, capitals don't have a sensible role in Trollsov. The Greatest Ship Ever. Credit to Shahfluffers.
FT Diomedes The Graduates Forged of Fire 912	Posted - 2015.03.26 13:55:02 - [2222] - Quote Aiyshimin wrote: FT Diomedes wrote: I posted this over in the main thread, but I am curious to see people's thoughts specifically as it relates to the issues associated with destroying things via Entosis. One of the things that has bothered me the most about the proposed sovereignty system is that it allows small, non-committal entities to destroy valuable things without committing very much of their own to the fight. With destructible stations coming SoonTM, this is particularly troubling. In light of that, I suggest the following compromise. In the proposed system, f I go into your system and run my Entosis link on your I-Hub and you do not stop me by chasing me away or blowing up my ship, it generates the standard timers as proposed by Fozzie. Forty-eight hours later, we have the multi-node Entosis capture point battles (or you blue ball me). If I win, I keep my stuff. Under the proposed system, "If the attackers win a capture event for a Territorial Claim Unit or Infrastructure Hub, then the structure explodes and any alliance will be free to attempt deploying of their own replacement structures." Now, here is my suggestion: "If the attackers win a capture event for a Territorial Claim Unit or Infrastructure Hub, then the structure becomes vulnerable to capture, theft, or destruction." A vulnerable structure may be captured when any alliance/corporation runs one Entosis cycle on it, at any time (no prime time window). Once captured, the structure belongs to that alliance and becomes vulnerable again during the next day's prime time for the capturing alliance. The captured structure retains the indices and other advantages earned by the previous owner[s]. A vulnerable structure may be stolen when any player scoops the structure into the cargo hold of his ship. Structures too large to fit into a ship cannot be stolen. Once scooped, the structure loses the indices and other advantages earned by the previous owner[s]. A vulnerable structure can be destroyed at any time, provided someone is willing to shoot at it long enough or bring enough [big] ships to do the job quickly. While there are no reinforcement timers, the structures all have a significant amount of hit points. In the event of destruction, the structure loss mail will belong to the last alliance/corporation to own the structure. I think that is a reasonable compromise. What say you? Advantages over the current proposal: 1. It still gives attackers a way to make people undock and fight to defend their space. 2. It requires real commitment to actually destroy any structure. 3. It preserves a role for Dreadnoughts and other big ships in the destruction of structures. 4. It allows for more emergent gameplay and player interaction. 5. Assuming that some structures are the right size, it could allow for some interesting choices regarding Freighters and Jump Freighters. I see no disadvantages of this system versus the current proposal. Except it completely nullifies the change by once again creating the need to bring a massive blob of caps and supers for the final grind. Which is what you probably want to achieve anyway. Not if you want to capture the space - only if you want to destroy it. It requires no additional effort if you want to capture and hold the space yourself. I edited my post to make that more clear. The Greatest Ship Ever. Credit to Shahfluffers.
rsantos Mosquito Squadron Mordus Angels 41	Posted - 2015.03.26 14:05:00 - [2223] - Quote FT Diomedes wrote: Mario Putzo wrote: FT Diomedes wrote: I find shooting structures in subcapitals to be very boring. I find it quite exciting when I have Dreadnoughts and/or Supercapitals, in Siege mode, and committed to the fight. There is absolutely nothing stopping you from committing Capitals and Super Capitals to a fight in FozzieSov. Of course fighting ships and fighting structures is a much different risk, and most folks will shy away from fielding their big toys against things that will shoot back and actually try to kill them. If you cannot be bothered to come attack my 2 billion ISK Dreadnoughts, who are stuck in siege mode and cannot run away at all, then perhaps you don't deserve to hold your space? See what I did there? When people commit Dreadnoughts, they are throwing down a 2B ISK asset and saying, "come at me, bro." Fighting structures with Dreadnoughts requires way more balls than bringing your kiting fleet and orbiting some structure while waiting to see what shows up (and burning off grid if you cannot handle it). You know full and well that unless I am part of a blob the size of CFC, there is no way I am able to field the five fleets of capital ships which would be required to successfully employ capitals in Trollsov. Not to mention the 400% time increase for using capitals. So, no, capitals don't have a sensible role in Trollsov. I would just like to point that ANYTHING that ends up limiting mobility, hull choice or the ability to disengage, will make n+1 a must and in the end you will have your trollsov dreads. That what CFC wants! You just said it! No one will out blob you.
Soldarius Kosher Nostra The 99 Percent 1196	Posted - 2015.03.26 14:08:28 - [2224] - Quote Rowells wrote: Aureus Ahishatsu wrote: I'll post this hear since I already mentioned it in the wormhole forums. how (if at all) are wh dwellers supposed to defend their structures if they can all be reinforced in the minimal time since we cannot claim sov? Wh dwellers aren't going to stick around if every structure can be re'fed in only 10 minutes. good luck getting to the other capture points in the constellation. Yah, Entosis Links and constellation-capture events are pretty pointless in w-space. So I think the larger structures (equivalent to stations) will simply not be available in w-space, thus preservation the status quo there. http://youtu.be/YVkUvmDQ3HY
Alavaria Fera GoonWaffe 6676	Posted - 2015.03.26 16:50:51 - [2225] - Quote rsantos wrote: FT Diomedes wrote: Mario Putzo wrote: There is absolutely nothing stopping you from committing Capitals and Super Capitals to a fight in FozzieSov. Of course fighting ships and fighting structures is a much different risk, and most folks will shy away from fielding their big toys against things that will shoot back and actually try to kill them. If you cannot be bothered to come attack my 2 billion ISK Dreadnoughts, who are stuck in siege mode and cannot run away at all, then perhaps you don't deserve to hold your space? See what I did there? When people commit Dreadnoughts, they are throwing down a 2B ISK asset and saying, "come at me, bro." Fighting structures with Dreadnoughts requires way more balls than bringing your kiting fleet and orbiting some structure while waiting to see what shows up (and burning off grid if you cannot handle it). You know full and well that unless I am part of a blob the size of CFC, there is no way I am able to field the five fleets of capital ships which would be required to successfully employ capitals in Trollsov. Not to mention the 400% time increase for using capitals. So, no, capitals don't have a sensible role in Trollsov. I would just like to point that ANYTHING that ends up limiting mobility, hull choice or the ability to disengage, will make n+1 a must and in the end you will have your trollsov dreads. That what CFC wants! You just said it! No one will out blob you. Don't worry, you can continue using the interceptors you do now, they will definitely have max mobility, what with fastest warp, fastest align, interdiction nullification. This thread has already been used to convince ccp that the sov laser concept is the ideal instrument to shake up sov (you could just add even more fatigue, but this is more elegant). Any ship with big tank shouldn't be allowed to use the sov laser, it's an option that has the most value to blobbers (specifically blobbers with blobs of big-tank ships, ie: supercaps) and therefore shouldn't be allowed to exist. remember how much fatigue was a major success in shaking up null? ^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears. Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
Mario Putzo Welping and Dunking. 1130	Posted - 2015.03.26 16:59:03 - [2226] - Quote Alavaria Fera wrote: **remember how much fatigue was a major success in shaking up null? It was never intended to on its own.
Mario Putzo Welping and Dunking. 1130	Posted - 2015.03.26 17:05:29 - [2227] - Quote FT Diomedes wrote: Mario Putzo wrote: FT Diomedes wrote: I find shooting structures in subcapitals to be very boring. I find it quite exciting when I have Dreadnoughts and/or Supercapitals, in Siege mode, and committed to the fight. There is absolutely nothing stopping you from committing Capitals and Super Capitals to a fight in FozzieSov. Of course fighting ships and fighting structures is a much different risk, and most folks will shy away from fielding their big toys against things that will shoot back and actually try to kill them. If you cannot be bothered to come attack my 2 billion ISK Dreadnoughts, who are stuck in siege mode and cannot run away at all, then perhaps you don't deserve to hold your space? See what I did there? Im not sure what your point is in response to what I wrote. You made a post asking to have capitals and super capitals to remain relevant in usage in contesting or defending sov. I simply pointed out there is nothing in the proposed changes that does not allow one to use these ships for that purpose. Sure they won't be the ones applying entosis links, but they will certainly still retain their strength in combat situations and offer greater support to fleets applying entosis links as well as force people to escalate if they wish to combat them reliably.
Soldarius Kosher Nostra The 99 Percent 1197	Posted - 2015.03.26 19:22:59 - [2228] - Quote Mario Putzo wrote: Sure they won't be the ones applying entosis links Who says? http://youtu.be/YVkUvmDQ3HY
Cade Windstalker Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra 313	Posted - 2015.03.26 22:05:51 - [2229] - Quote Specia1 K wrote: Cade Windstalker wrote: ...the general consensus seems to be that an Interceptor is going to be at only slightly more risk of being blown up harassing Sov than it is sitting in station in Jita... It is not the consensus in this thread. Disingenuous comments like this negate your whole argument and demonstrate your lack of experience and knowledge in this discussion. You have made some good arguments in previous posts, btw. I'm well aware of what I'm saying. The intent is to invite people to disagree with me. If no one does then my assumption seems to be correct, if someone does then discussion happens. So far the balance of points seems to be in favor of Interceptors being nearly impossible to catch in the time it takes a T2 Entosis Link to cycle. This matches my personal experience chasing Interceptors. While it's certainly possible to drive them off grid if you can't kill them then the attacker is risking nothing more than time for their attack and that doesn't strike me as a fair trade for the annoyance value of "Your space-thingy is under attack! (x20)". Since part of the stated goal of this Sov rebuild is to make Sov itself more of a driver of interesting content and less of a chore (ala, shoot structures in a cap fleet for four hours while you watch Netflix) I'd say this is at least a valid concern. BTW, if it'll help I'll try to change "no one is saying" to "I haven't seen anyone saying" since that's what I meant. I literally have not seen anyone saying that letting an NPC AI defend sov from serious attempts to take it is a good idea. FT Diomedes wrote: I find shooting structures in subcapitals to be very boring. I find it quite exciting when I have Dreadnoughts and/or Supercapitals, in Siege mode, and committed to the fight. Even when there is no actual "fight" going on, just a bunch of dreads and support ships grinding through a few dozen POSes (or whatever) in an evening? If you've already beaten them for control of the beacons there's certainly not likely to be any response to you trying to blow up whatever you've just captured. FT Diomedes wrote: You know full and well that unless I am part of a blob the size of CFC, there is no way I am able to field the five fleets of capital ships which would be required to successfully employ capitals in Trollsov. Not to mention the 400% time increase for using capitals. So, no, capitals don't have a sensible role in Trollsov. Capitals are also going to be rebalanced because the majority opinion among the player base seems to be that they're in a very bad place and have been for years. A big part of this being the dependence of the current system on large fleets of Capitals and Super Capitals. Also there's no increase in time required to capture something with an Entosis Link (assuming something else does the initial cycle anyway), the cycle time just gets longer, exposing you to more risk. Mario Putzo wrote: They are risking something, and perhaps even more of an investment, spending time playing chicken and time is the single most valuable commodity in EVE, as it is in life. Just because you don't agree on the value of the risk does not mean there is not risk. Even by that metric they're causing the defenders to risk more than the attackers, since a single Interceptor still requires someone to come deal with him, which means the defenders need to rally up and go chase him off, thus wasting their time as well. If a single Inty manages to pull two people away from ratting he's probably wasted more of someone's time than he's spent trolling them. If his entire goal is to waste peoples' time and troll them then he hasn't even risked or wasted anything. If he pulls someone off to chase him off, win. If he gets the timer finished, also a win. Win/win situation. And yes, my entire point here is that I don't agree with the apparent level of risk to the Inty pilot. Other people may disagree.
Cade Windstalker Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra 313	Posted - 2015.03.26 22:07:56 - [2230] - Quote Mario Putzo wrote: Having a Random 4 hour window is a poor design, because it allows a group of people to essentially force people to stand around with their thumb in their ass doing nothing for 4 hours (if they choose to defend an asset). As I said earlier time is the most valuable commodity in the game, and having an unadjustable 4 hour window where nothing at all could happen is bad. Who wants to sit around for 4 hours doing nothing. No one. I'm not sure why you would have to sit around sitting on your thumbs for 4 hours. This 4 hours window is supposed to be set when your player-base is the most active. If you're utilizing all of your space then there should be people in most if not all of your systems doing whatever they want, which means you'll know when a hostile incursion occurs you'll have some idea of numbers, and even if neither of the above are true there's an Alliance-wide mail that will go out saying "Yo! Guys! Space-thingy is being Entosis'd over here and has X time left!" at which point you'll have between 10 and 40 minutes to respond. With full occupancy around 30-40 minutes at the least. More than enough time to get everyone together into a fleet, fit up the ships, go to the bathroom, and go kick invader arse.

Zeus Sparta The Arcadian Sun 0	Posted - 2015.03.26 22:25:27 - [2231] - Quote Another possible addition or a whole separate part is the ability to convert offline Control Towers. Would also help clear up a lot of unused moons too.
Cade Windstalker Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra 313	Posted - 2015.03.26 22:26:34 - [2232] - Quote Zeus Sparta wrote: Another possible addition or a whole separate part is the ability to convert offline Control Towers. Would also help clear up a lot of unused moons too. You can report these if the entity that owns them no longer exists and CCP will remove them. Otherwise just war-dec the guys and shoot their stuff.
rsantos Mosquito Squadron Mordus Angels 41	Posted - 2015.03.26 23:03:22 - [2233] - Quote Alavaria Fera wrote: I would just like to point that ANYTHING that ends up limiting mobility, hull choice or the ability to disengage, will make n+1 a must and in the end you will have your trollsov dreads. That what CFC wants! You just said it! No one will out blob you. Don't worry, you can continue using the interceptors you do now, they will definitely have max mobility, what with fastest warp, fastest align, interdiction nullification. This thread has already been used to convince ccp that the sov laser concept is the ideal instrument to shake up sov (you could just add even more fatigue, but this is more elegant). Any ship with big tank shouldn't be allowed to use the sov laser, it's an option that has the most value to blobbers (specifically blobbers with blobs of big-tank ships, ie: supercaps) and therefore shouldn't be allowed to exist. remember how much fatigue was a major success in shaking up null? If CCP reversed the interceptor changes I would be very happy!
Mario Putzo Welping and Dunking. 1130	Posted - 2015.03.27 03:50:48 - [2234] - Quote Cade Windstalker wrote: Mario Putzo wrote: Having a Random 4 hour window is a poor design, because it allows a group of people to essentially force people to stand around with their thumb in their ass doing nothing for 4 hours (if they choose to defend an asset). As I said earlier time is the most valuable commodity in the game, and having an unadjustable 4 hour window where nothing at all could happen is bad. Who wants to sit around for 4 hours doing nothing. No one. I'm not sure why you would have to sit around sitting on your thumbs for 4 hours. This 4 hours window is supposed to be set when your player-base is the most active. If you're utilizing all of your space then there should be people in most if not all of your systems doing whatever they want, which means you'll know when a hostile incursion occurs you'll have some idea of numbers, and even if neither of the above are true there's an Alliance-wide mail that will go out saying "Yo! Guys! Space-thingy is being Entosis'd over here and has X time left!" at which point you'll have between 10 and 40 minutes to respond. With full occupancy around 30-40 minutes at the least. More than enough time to get everyone together into a fleet, fit up the ships, go to the bathroom, and go kick invader arse. Surely you're joking. Either you don't understand the importance of system control in contested space, or you are just being ignorant for the sake of being ignorant. There is not an entity in this game that is going to cede control to an attacker for an exit window during a contested timer unless they are pants on head ******. Your synopsis is bang on for the instigation phase...but when the real event kicks off, your method will result in a loss the majority of the time, ceding control of a contested grid is *** **** if you actually plan on defending it...much like ceding control of a contested grid is *** **** if you actually plan on taking it. For example...remember 6VDT when TEST decided they had tons of time, and CFC just said it we will sit in the system all day and wait for the timer because then TEST will have to fight through us just to get to the grid to defend against us. Remember how that scenario played out. Scratch DPSing replace it with Entosis linking **, and you will get the same outcome every time.
Serendipity Lost Repo Industries 891	Posted - 2015.03.27 04:18:36 - [2235] - Quote Forgive me for not reading 98 pages. Just a quick question: Can I pop out of a wh and use the entosis hoo haw to mess w/ a random systems sov in the 24 hour window that said wh connection exists?
Serendipity Lost Repo Industries 891	Posted - 2015.03.27 04:25:58 - [2236] - Quote Putting a few things together from different posts, it seems like there is a good deal of concern over interceptors w/ the entosis thingy just making a mess of things. What's the range on the entosis thinger? I was looking at the new structure fitting picture and saw 2 smartbombs in the structure high slot fittings. I would imagine that if the structure smartbomb range was enough to cover the range of an inty using the entosis thinger, then it may not be that much of a problem. Is entosis thinger range fixed or based on the ship using it?? Am I mixing apples and oranges here?
Arrendis GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 320	Posted - 2015.03.27 05:20:30 - [2237] - Quote Serendipity Lost wrote: Putting a few things together from different posts, it seems like there is a good deal of concern over interceptors w/ the entosis thingy just making a mess of things. What's the range on the entosis thinger? I was looking at the new structure fitting picture and saw 2 smartbombs in the structure high slot fittings. I would imagine that if the structure smartbomb range was enough to cover the range of an inty using the entosis thinger, then it may not be that much of a problem. Is entosis thinger range fixed or based on the ship using it?? Am I mixing apples and oranges here? On the T2, the range is 250km, so functionally, the limit is the Interceptor's targeting range. That said, the interceptors probably aren't going to be a problem.
Mario Putzo Welping and Dunking. 1130	Posted - 2015.03.27 06:18:18 - [2238] - Quote Serendipity Lost wrote: Forgive me for not reading 98 pages. Just a quick question: Can I pop out of a wh and use the entosis hoo haw to mess w/ a random systems sov in the 24 hour window that said wh connection exists? Yes you would be able to do that.
Kagura Nikon Mentally Assured Destruction The Pursuit of Happiness 2028	Posted - 2015.03.27 09:37:31 - [2239] - Quote Mario Putzo wrote: Serendipity Lost wrote: Forgive me for not reading 98 pages. Just a quick question: Can I pop out of a wh and use the entosis hoo haw to mess w/ a random systems sov in the 24 hour window that said wh connection exists? Yes you would be able to do that. and that is why this new system will force people to LIVE and work on the systems they really want to keep. "If brute force does not solve your problem.... then you are surely not using enough!" For the rest hire PoH \| Recruitment
Mario Putzo Welping and Dunking. 1130	Posted - 2015.03.28 03:43:39 - [2240] - Quote Kagura Nikon wrote: Mario Putzo wrote: Serendipity Lost wrote: Forgive me for not reading 98 pages. Just a quick question: Can I pop out of a wh and use the entosis hoo haw to mess w/ a random systems sov in the 24 hour window that said wh connection exists? Yes you would be able to do that. and that is why this new system will force people to LIVE and work on the systems they really want to keep. Which is the best update this game has made in years to Null Sec, hence the plethora of Null Sec posters bitter posting about having to actively defend their space apart from just showing up to a predetermined timer fight.

Alavaria Fera GoonWaffe 6676	Posted - 2015.03.28 04:18:28 - [2241] - Quote Yes, our 0.0 nightmare will be shattered ^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears. Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
Ben Ishikela 29	Posted - 2015.03.28 06:29:37 - [2242] - Quote CCP Fozzie wrote: (1)As much as possible, the Entosis Link capture progress should reflect which group has effective military control of the grid. (2)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. (4)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. Here are just some thoughts. unrefined. and in no particular order @(1)&(2):If defender has at least same "control" of the grid, no capture progress should be made. The defender is winning, if he manages to hold a stalemate. Who holds the Fortress after Battles and Sieges in human history? Thedefender owns it until they are starved out (logisitc interuption). Or the attacker breaks the defence. Therefore i think there needs to be an option to not have to chase and kill the attacker all the time if he runs pillaging though your lands and is faster (stinky pete, trollceptor,.....). The defender should just have to errect walls. Therefore its on the attacker to break the stalemate. He has the initiative and can decide time and place. He can gather intel first of what "walls" needed to break. hint: there are battering rams and other siege stuff available to smash the walls (see ECM, damps(some extend), big alpha dmg). If they would not be there, bad choice options then. But this should be balanced by other means than balancing just a single module. "(2)=>(4)" is very well true out of a attacker perspective. Therefore if the attacker is lame and does not provide content, he should not be rewarded by any progress. If the defender is already commited (structure value etc.). The attacker needs to commit something to a fight also or its just trolling and should not be rewarded as much. As stated above a defender cant hunt all the other parties in the game all the time just to defend one structure. Grand scale "stalemates" are essential to diplomacy. Logistic and Ewar is very interesting teamplay and newbro friendly. imho please incentivice the use of it. Please introduce more active option to counter ewar. just fit eccm is lame. remote eccm is great teamplay. also when being jammed, the "nothing can do"-awefulness for 20seconds needs to change. If lock is lost during active entosis link, the progress of cycle is lost anyway. Therefore some suggestion on ecm about reduction of cycletime and "just loose lock like ecmburst" might be viable again. Also no ewar immunity anywhere (there would be ways to buff your capital against ecm, right?). Stalemate encourage excalation, right? If no OR looking at tactics how to outplay your opponent while fighting is boring, then go home! @(4): if "indefinite Stalemates" are a possibity, something else is broken. not just one module!! TLDR: Therefore i vote for remote assist still possible on active entosers. +1 for electronic warfare use to counter logi. After all i'd like to fly small-scale and attack whatever is undefended. Or outtank a siege for 4hours of vulnerable primetime in active logi and support battles. Additional feature to help (2) ("status reflects control"): If two entosis links are active (stalemate), move progress slowly to the "middle"(50%). speed affected by capture speed of both parties. move it faster, the more the progress is away from middle and vice versa. or shift the middle to anything 0-100%, depending on if system has an activity index modifier thing (0 for lvl5. 100% for inactive). --- You can always cancel remote assist possibility in future patches, when you see that its not good. vice versa is no so possible, is it? Add new modules or ships that can use tactics and strategies to beat the current meta or use totaly different gameplay to do so! yay :)
Aiyshimin Fistful of Finns Triumvirate. 493	Posted - 2015.03.28 08:24:24 - [2243] - Quote Posting these questions again, as players are already planning their tactics and strategies for the summer, we deserve some more information. Aiyshimin wrote: Some specific questions on the Command Node capture event: Are the Command Nodes in deadspace? (like Large FW complexes) Is the exact victory condition for the event just "whoever first completes 10 nodes"? Can NPC corp members use Entosis Links on structures? Does the Entosis Link cycle continue without target lock? Do the nodes have a visible timer for everyone on grid? and a few more: Do the nodes allow anchoring deployables in their vicinity? Will the nodes have a decloaking sphere around them? The deadspace or not part is the most important now, along with the "tug of war" specifics. Thanks!
Veskrashen Justified Chaos Spaceship Bebop 854	Posted - 2015.03.28 15:58:06 - [2244] - Quote Arrendis wrote: That said, the interceptors probably aren't going to be a problem. CULTURAL VICTORY! We Gallente have a saying: "CCP created the Gallente Militia to train the Fighters..."
Miner Hottie Valar Morghulis. Goonswarm Federation 123	Posted - 2015.03.29 02:18:20 - [2245] - Quote Mario Putzo wrote: Kagura Nikon wrote: Mario Putzo wrote: Serendipity Lost wrote: Forgive me for not reading 98 pages. Just a quick question: Can I pop out of a wh and use the entosis hoo haw to mess w/ a random systems sov in the 24 hour window that said wh connection exists? Yes you would be able to do that. and that is why this new system will force people to LIVE and work on the systems they really want to keep. Which is the best update this game has made in years to Null Sec, hence the plethora of Null Sec posters bitter posting about having to actively defend their space apart from just showing up to a predetermined timer fight. Um we Goonswarm, live in Deklein, which has some of the highest sov indexs in all of null sec, we live the **** out our space. The ability to properly live and rat in our space causes the system sprawl you see. Ratting in a system below 0.6 is generally bad. Hence we rarely bother with them unless one of our more autistic memebrs rats rally points for the 6 of 10 escalation. If this was properly addressed (and some of fozzies comments about null sec income lead me to believe he won't touch it because its "fine") then the sprawl will continue with remaining systems held for completeness or left a wasteland. It's all about how hot my mining lasers get.
Cade Windstalker Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra 316	Posted - 2015.03.29 07:35:38 - [2246] - Quote Miner Hottie wrote: Um we Goonswarm, live in Deklein, which has some of the highest sov indexs in all of null sec, we live the **** out our space. The ability to properly live and rat in our space causes the system sprawl you see. Ratting in a system below 0.6 is generally bad. Hence we rarely bother with them unless one of our more autistic memebrs rats rally points for the 6 of 10 escalation. If this was properly addressed (and some of fozzies comments about null sec income lead me to believe he won't touch it because its "fine") then the sprawl will continue with remaining systems held for completeness or left a wasteland. If these new structures let you dial-a-yield on the sec status of your systems then it's likely the bad areas will fade or be rented off (depending on the level of customization). The alternative is anything that's not locked down getting the crap harassed out of it because 15 minute timers and "lol goons". I think if this system doesn't at least make it significantly harder to hold large chunks of space, "for completeness" or otherwise, then it's failed at least one of its objectives. If you can actually hold it, or its being worked by the members, then great whatever, but un-used space should be hard to defend.
Arkumord Churhee Bavarian Unstressed Mining Mob Synergy of Steel 27	Posted - 2015.03.29 11:37:56 - [2247] - Quote Didn't read the entire thread, so my idea might actually be nothing new at all... I'd be fine with interceptors fitting the Entosis Link, as long as: - The Entosis Link can't be fitted together with a cloaking device - While the entosis link is active, all other active modules are deactivated and their effect negated instantly (however receiving a cooldown lasting as long as the rest of the cycle would have lasted). This would render the attacking ship sufficiently vulnerable so trollceptors would be easy prey, without hindering serious fleets too much. The cooldown on modules deactivating would be there so you can't use this to insta-cancel your cyno / bastion / siege / triage / whatever.
Alavaria Fera GoonWaffe 6677	Posted - 2015.03.29 19:41:55 - [2248] - Quote Miner Hottie wrote: Um we Goonswarm, live in Deklein, which has some of the highest sov indexs in all of null sec, we live the **** out our space. The ability to properly live and rat in our space causes the system sprawl you see. Ratting in a system below 0.6 is generally bad. Hence we rarely bother with them unless one of our more autistic memebrs rats rally points for the 6 of 10 escalation. If this was properly addressed (and some of fozzies comments about null sec income lead me to believe he won't touch it because its "fine") then the sprawl will continue with remaining systems held for completeness or left a wasteland. A wasteland would definitely be a shakeup of sov. But there's other ways to make a wasteland, that also make you cry. ^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears. Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
d0cTeR9 Astro Technologies SpaceMonkey's Alliance 105	Posted - 2015.03.29 23:53:34 - [2249] - Quote Trollceptors are real... just go to null sec and look at all those gangs in ceptors doing w/e they want. So when this new anti-sov module is active: -100% speed Can't jump/Cyno out No remote help allowed
Tappits North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion 87	Posted - 2015.03.30 11:29:24 - [2250] - Quote Just make the Laser pointer things range scale to what ship its fitted to so frigs get a 10-15 km range destroyers have 15-20 cruisers get 25-35 battle cruisers something like 40-60 BS get 75-100 and caps can be 100-125 carriers dreads 150 supers 200 and titans 250

Malthraz Malthraz. 1	Posted - 2015.03.31 04:16:27 - [2251] - Quote My biggest problem with this threadnaught is that Goons are actually making some sense. That aside, I think the main issue is that very little commitment is needed to kick off the capture process. To change this, what I think should happen is that the initial attack should require the same capture mechanics as the final defense, with one exception. That exception being, that if the attacker cannot win the capture-the-node-game within the vulnerability window the defenders structures are safe. So it would be impossible for a lone attacker to troll their way to victory if the system had a good defensive timer bonus. My proposed system is this: The initially attack has to be made against the station/ihub/etc. and would still require the 10-40 minutes +2 minutes for warm up and would still have to be made during the vulnerability window. If this is successful then the various capture nodes start to spawn across the constellation. The attacker will have to capture nodes and gain a 10 node advantage (or whatever they decide is appropriate, could be fewer for the initial attack to make it a bit easier to achieve) to put the station/ihub/etc. into reinforce as per the CCP proposed system. Even if you had only a 2x defensive time bonus, and assuming that a solo attacker had to capture 10 nodes, it would not be possible to solo their way to victory. 2 minutes warm up, 20 minutes capture, then 10 nodes multiplied by (20 minutes +2 minutes warm up) = 242 minutes of capturing (+travel time) within 240 vulnerability window. Therefore, not possible. Against a system with no defensive bonus and nobody defending, it would be possible. The system I propose makes taking sov harder. The CCP proposed system makes trolling people way too appealing. While my proposed system does not require much of a commitment of isk by the attacker, it does require a definite commitment of time. The attacker will have the advantage because they know when and where they are going to attack. A solo or half-hearted attack will be easy to defend if people are in their system (solo attacks do not even need to be defended with a good defensive time bonus). However, a committed attacker will require defensive response. The defender may be able to scramble enough people to hold some of the systems in their constellation and may be able to capture enough of the nodes to survive through until the vulnerability window closes. So, the defender's lack of numbers and preparation is compensated by their defensive time bonus and that the attack is working against the clock. What do you think? In regard to the troll-ceptor, I think it could probably be taken out with a 10mn MWD Svipul. I messed around with one last night and did 14k m/s, with heat. Add links and implants and you can definitely chase down a troll-ceptor. A good troll-ceptor pilot may be able to evade a single Svipul because it handles like a barge, but at least there are options on the table. Personally, I think the link should add mass, similar to Hictor's bubble. However, there are many game-mechanic options on the table and I trust CCP (perhaps I am being naive here) to make sure the troll-ceptor does not make it into the game.
King Fu Hostile Fistful of Finns Triumvirate. 321	Posted - 2015.03.31 07:10:43 - [2252] - Quote Malthraz wrote: To change this, what I think should happen is that the initial attack should require the same capture mechanics as the final defense, with one exception. That exception being, that if the attacker cannot win the capture-the-node-game within the vulnerability window the defenders structures are safe. So it would be impossible for a lone attacker to troll their way to victory if the system had a good defensive timer bonus. Pretty awesome suggestion. Does not hinder steamrolling unused space, but generates more fights in occupied space, while elegantly dealing with sovtrolling without artificial restrictions. +1
Kristian Hackett Alpha Republic - Transcenders of Space and Time Solyaris Chtonium 51	Posted - 2015.03.31 18:23:53 - [2253] - Quote So.... going through and catching up on 15 pages of threads, one thing caught my eye that people seem to be missing in regards to the Trollceptor, although this may require some additional confirmation as I can't find it actually written anywhere yet - no prop mods (MWD/AB) while Link is active. If that's the case, as long as there's a hefty cooldown that prevents an interceptor from being able to drop the link right away and then burn out, there's no way an interceptor is going to move fast enough to escape anything. But then again, maybe this is just hearsay unless someone can confirm that is indeed one of the planned penalties. Aircraft Maintenance - Using a high school diploma to fix what a college degree just f**ed up. "Life is too short to drink cheap beer."*
Cade Windstalker Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra 318	Posted - 2015.03.31 22:11:08 - [2254] - Quote Kristian Hackett wrote: So.... going through and catching up on 15 pages of threads, one thing caught my eye that people seem to be missing in regards to the Trollceptor, although this may require some additional confirmation as I can't find it actually written anywhere yet - no prop mods (MWD/AB) while Link is active. If that's the case, as long as there's a hefty cooldown that prevents an interceptor from being able to drop the link right away and then burn out, there's no way an interceptor is going to move fast enough to escape anything. But then again, maybe this is just hearsay unless someone can confirm that is indeed one of the planned penalties. This already came up way back at the start and was responded to by CCP. The issue with this is that it completely torpedoes kiting fleets, which are a legitimate tactic.
Miner Hottie Valar Morghulis. Goonswarm Federation 123	Posted - 2015.04.01 06:24:10 - [2255] - Quote Cade Windstalker wrote: Miner Hottie wrote: Um we Goonswarm, live in Deklein, which has some of the highest sov indexs in all of null sec, we live the **** out our space. The ability to properly live and rat in our space causes the system sprawl you see. Ratting in a system below 0.6 is generally bad. Hence we rarely bother with them unless one of our more autistic memebrs rats rally points for the 6 of 10 escalation. If this was properly addressed (and some of fozzies comments about null sec income lead me to believe he won't touch it because its "fine") then the sprawl will continue with remaining systems held for completeness or left a wasteland. If these new structures let you dial-a-yield on the sec status of your systems then it's likely the bad areas will fade or be rented off (depending on the level of customization). The alternative is anything that's not locked down getting the crap harassed out of it because 15 minute timers and "lol goons". I think if this system doesn't at least make it significantly harder to hold large chunks of space, "for completeness" or otherwise, then it's failed at least one of its objectives. If you can actually hold it, or its being worked by the members, then great whatever, but un-used space should be hard to defend. Adjustable yields/proper sov upgrades sounds great. What will CCP actually deliver? It's all about how hot my mining lasers get.
Miner Hottie Valar Morghulis. Goonswarm Federation 123	Posted - 2015.04.01 06:25:58 - [2256] - Quote Malthraz wrote: My biggest problem with this threadnaught is that Goons are actually making some sense. That aside, I think the main issue is that very little commitment is needed to kick off the capture process. To change this, what I think should happen is that the initial attack should require the same capture mechanics as the final defense, with one exception. That exception being, that if the attacker cannot win the capture-the-node-game within the vulnerability window the defenders structures are safe. So it would be impossible for a lone attacker to troll their way to victory if the system had a good defensive timer bonus. My proposed system is this: The initially attack has to be made against the station/ihub/etc. and would still require the 10-40 minutes +2 minutes for warm up and would still have to be made during the vulnerability window. If this is successful then the various capture nodes start to spawn across the constellation. The attacker will have to capture nodes and gain a 10 node advantage (or whatever they decide is appropriate, could be fewer for the initial attack to make it a bit easier to achieve) to put the station/ihub/etc. into reinforce as per the CCP proposed system. Even if you had only a 2x defensive time bonus, and assuming that a solo attacker had to capture 10 nodes, it would not be possible to solo their way to victory. 2 minutes warm up, 20 minutes capture, then 10 nodes multiplied by (20 minutes +2 minutes warm up) = 242 minutes of capturing (+travel time) within 240 vulnerability window. Therefore, not possible. Against a system with no defensive bonus and nobody defending, it would be possible. The system I propose makes taking sov harder. The CCP proposed system makes trolling people way too appealing. While my proposed system does not require much of a commitment of isk by the attacker, it does require a definite commitment of time. The attacker will have the advantage because they know when and where they are going to attack. A solo or half-hearted attack will be easy to defend if people are in their system (solo attacks do not even need to be defended with a good defensive time bonus). However, a committed attacker will require defensive response. The defender may be able to scramble enough people to hold some of the systems in their constellation and may be able to capture enough of the nodes to survive through until the vulnerability window closes. So, the defender's lack of numbers and preparation is compensated by their defensive time bonus and that the attack is working against the clock. What do you think? In regard to the troll-ceptor, I think it could probably be taken out with a 10mn MWD Svipul. I messed around with one last night and did 14k m/s, with heat. Add links and implants and you can definitely chase down a troll-ceptor. A good troll-ceptor pilot may be able to evade a single Svipul because it handles like a barge, but at least there are options on the table. Personally, I think the link should add mass, similar to Hictor's bubble. However, there are many game-mechanic options on the table and I trust CCP (perhaps I am being naive here) to make sure the troll-ceptor does not make it into the game. It's worse than you think, not only are the goons making sense, but Gevlon Goblin is agreeing with us. It's all about how hot my mining lasers get.
Cade Windstalker Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra 320	Posted - 2015.04.01 15:34:17 - [2257] - Quote Miner Hottie wrote: Adjustable yields/proper sov upgrades sounds great. What will CCP actually deliver? I think that's largely dependent on our feedback here, which means discussing what mechanics we'd like these structures to have in the relevant threads and pushing for the ones we think would create good and interesting gameplay. In this case I think Sov Upgrades go in the Administration Hubs and Advertisement Centers thread Since Goons are one of the largest and most active Sov-holding entities I'm sure CCP would like to have your feedback, as well as feedback from everyone who just groaned at that sentence (and everyone else).
Xe'Cara'eos A Big Enough Lever 234	Posted - 2015.04.01 21:26:18 - [2258] - Quote has anyone thought about making the entosis link cause a stacking penalty to incoming RR, or perhaps allowing remote assistance, with the EXCEPTION of reps (so rECCM, rSeBo, rTC, cap xfer, etc is allowed) if one cannot be repped with the link active, the meta will either favour massive amount of derp-ships (derptrons, etc), warping in as a bunch, and the sheer time it takes to kill them all will allow significant progress to be made unless you have a similar mass of derp-ships or a trolletto on hand - bigger blob winning all the time makes for pretty boring (if realistic) gameplay I'd be very interested to know how often triage, siege, and bastion are initiated in fights larger than, say 100 players, because that's pretty much what entosis achieves - a mobile state of seige. I also maintain that capping out an entosis user's speed at something like 3km/s isn't too unreasonable tl;dr consider: allowing RR but with stacking penalty allowing remote assistance, excluding RR capping the speed of an entosis-fitted/using ship For posting an idea into F&I: come up with idea, try and think how people could abuse this, try to fix your idea - loop the process until you can't see how it could be abused, then post to the forums to let us figure out how to abuse it..... If your idea can be abused, it [u]WILL[/u] be.
Cade Windstalker Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra 323	Posted - 2015.04.01 21:51:06 - [2259] - Quote Xe'Cara'eos wrote: has anyone thought about making the entosis link cause a stacking penalty to incoming RR, or perhaps allowing remote assistance, with the EXCEPTION of reps (so rECCM, rSeBo, rTC, cap xfer, etc is allowed) if one cannot be repped with the link active, the meta will either favour massive amount of derp-ships (derptrons, etc), warping in as a bunch, and the sheer time it takes to kill them all will allow significant progress to be made unless you have a similar mass of derp-ships or a trolletto on hand - bigger blob winning all the time makes for pretty boring (if realistic) gameplay I'd be very interested to know how often triage, siege, and bastion are initiated in fights larger than, say 100 players, because that's pretty much what entosis achieves - a mobile state of seige. I also maintain that capping out an entosis user's speed at something like 3km/s isn't too unreasonable tl;dr consider: allowing RR but with stacking penalty allowing remote assistance, excluding RR capping the speed of an entosis-fitted/using ship If you bring too many ships to one fight then the attacker will just go harass the twenty or so other Sov structures in the constellation until one drops. Then, when the timer rolls around, you have the same problem where if you over-commit to one area the rest of the nodes will fall and you'll be down by 3 node points. If someone brings an Alpha fleet you just bring more Entosis Links, since there's no requirement that you only have one active on a structure at a time. Plus while you're alpha-ing down the no-doubt bait-tanked Entosis ships the rest of the enemy fleet is DPSing you down right back. TLDR: Lets see a practical test or two, or at least some examples with hard numbers, before we declare that something here absolutely won't work just based on a gut feeling and napkin math.

CCP Fozzie C C P C C P Alliance 12422	Posted - 2015.04.01 22:29:36 - [2260] - Quote Hey everyone. We're now ready to bring forward a new more detailed set of Entosis Link information and start getting feedback based on that. I'm going to lock and unsticky this thread so that we keep the discussion as focused as possible. Please continue your discussion in this thread. Game Designer \| Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie http://www.twitch.tv/ccp_fozzie/




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]

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.