sorry, damn quickpost didn't post and I had to add something you could have potentially flamed...


"Make mobile depots bigger so they can't fit in ceptors"

All Hail Ethosis Rifter Bolb

I like the stats it makes me happy you can't fit T2 on frigs.

I don't see any reason to make capital ships have a longer duration. Sure, they're more difficult to shoot down, but they're also more difficult to get into position and a lot more valuable of a target. It's not like shooting a linking subcap is going to reset the timer for that side, in fact it likely won't even stop their timer since many forces will use multiple entosis links on a single structure.

Yes, an entire fleet of dreadnoughts and carriers will easily win a link. Is that a bad thing? I say we should have more reasons to put capital ships in the line of fire, not less.

How about the e link will make ewar immune ships vulnerable to ewar while to module is active. You really going to use your super with an elink if you csnt br rr and you can be jammed?

I get that you want the emphasis to be on the fight, not on the capture mechanic itself... but using the Entosis module seems to make you so incredibly vulnerable that you can't realistically consider using it until the fight is over!

This reduces the entire Entosis Link mechanic to a mere formality that must be attended to after the fight.

Hardly sounds like exciting new gameplay to me... more like paperwork.


I do have an alternative mechanic in mind...

What are the primary benefits of this hybrid Entosis-Grind mechanic?

Trollceptors capturing stuff with Entosis Links is not just mitigated, it is annihilated because they simply lack the DPS

Removes the whole "who are the attackers and who are the defenders" mess. Either there is an Entosis Link being used on the structure or there is not. It doesn't matter who is using it.

Imagine a 50 million EHP structure that might ordinarily take an hour to grind and destroy... then imagine you reduce its resistances from 99% to 0% using an Entosis Link while you're busy shooting at it. Its EHP drops from 50 million to just 500k. Your Entosis Link just saved you a hell of a lot of time and made it damn hard for any defenders to rep the thing. That makes it an invaluable asset, but at the same time... you didn't really need it. It would have taken a lot longer and been a lot harder without it, but it still would have been possible.

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.

I get that you want the emphasis to be on the fight, not on the capture mechanic itself... but using the Entosis module seems to make you so incredibly vulnerable that you can't realistically consider using it until the fight is over!

This reduces the entire Entosis Link mechanic to a mere formality that must be attended to after the fight.

Damnit Goons! Making me like your post! :P
Sounds like CCP have this one looking like a potential concept then, though we'll have to see how the Meta actually plays out and I still have huge concerns over the density issue that you simply can't have a substantial number of people living in the same system in Null (Unless you are miners).

We don't need structure grinding to make a comeback. Even if you bring Structures down to 0% resistances they still have a massive amount of EHP and it's impractical to kill them without either a massive sub-cap blob or a slightly less massive capital fleet. For reference an Infrastructure hub has 5 million structure, 75 million shields, and 112.5 million Armor. That's just shy of 200 million total EHP

Actually that link you posted is out of date. If you look at an Infrastructure Hub in-game you will find that it has less than half that many hit points (2.5 mil structure, 45 mil armour and 30 mil shield). Taking its resistance into account, it has 96.25 million EHP. If we were to adjust the structure stats so that all of that came from 99% resistances instead of raw HP, my proposed Entosis Link mechanics would reduce that EHP to less than 1 mil. In other words, down from approximately double a Titan's EHP to less than a Dreadnought's EHP.


That amount of EHP is nothing for a 0.0 blob, but still far too much for a trollceptor to handle. This is the sweet spot! This is what we should be aiming for!

See structures for a fix to this. (hint: mission agents in sov space)

I would recommend Adv. infomorph Psychology level 5 for the T2 module.
it should not be that easy to fit.
or make a small and large version with T1 and T2 metas.
I want to see some difficult requirements for the faster / more efficient module.

and limit the module to higher skill requirements.
a full account is not a limit as long it does not cost really much time and isk...

T2 makes me and my fleet more agile, thereforeit should have higher requirements. on the other side, it can be balanced later as well.

See structures for a fix to this. (hint: mission agents in sov space)

Seen it, don't like mission agents as a fix, because it creates no competition for space, since mission agents scale infinitely (Well, till you hit Tidi anyway, so 700 people or so at once operating from a single system since they spread out into neighbours a little if we take Osmon as a guide.) Also it encourages solo play.

Yes, I have the same opinion on highsec missions and would rather see vastly greater numbers of 'system missions' which are like anomalies and have multiple objectives for a fleet to work together on, but if you do them solo you only have to complete one primary objective for the thing to despawn. Payouts per internal objective rather than the entire site to encourage co-operation since you don't lose cash by sharing (Possibly small multiplier even for completing multiple primary objectives which would be super hard/impossible to do solo due to distance, timers, whatever).
Pay out LP based on who owns the space and who has stations.

Not sure how that would translate well into Null space in terms of LP to avoid too much of an isk faucet, but being able to pick and chose which corp you get agents for doesn't sound like a particularly good plan either, that just sounds like 'we want to farm the best LP corp'.
But failing a new form of PvE site, I guess randomly allocated agents would work.

The vast majority of PvE content in Null currently is completeable by a solo ship and it's my understanding that this is the way the majority of null players do it because it maximizes their ISK income. Additional PvE content would be great, but seems outside the scope of the sov rework.

Just because it's possible for players to clump up around a single agent doesn't necessarily mean that it will happen, and if it does then their occupancy metrics in other systems will suffer and their space will be easier to take.

Also your original concern is somewhat moot since if you're fully utilizing a system's site spawns then you shouldn't have a problem hitting your occupancy metrics. There's no requirement that just the people using a system defend it so there's no requirement that a ton of people be packed into every system, and if we ever hit the point where every system in Player Controlled Null is being fully utilized I'll send the Game Design team a cake in congratulations on doing the impossible.

Just because the ratting index is crazy easy to get to V solo doesn't mean that occupancy is suitable for defending nodes against 30 minute raids. If you have to put out calls to five systems away to form up 20 or 30 people then you aren't going to be able to effectively defend space, and large alliances (I.E. Goons as a classic example) are going to still need vast swathes of land in order to provide for their members.
If the potential occupancy is instead on level of a high sec lvl 4 system, so lets say..... 100 simultaneously. Then not only can you adjust the index so you can't max it solo but V actually means a large number of people working together, but you also have alliances only holding small areas since they don't need 1000 systems for their members.

While it seems unrelated this plays directly into the Entosis link, and into there being room in null for smaller alliances who don't join the big coalitions, since especially those smaller alliances need to be able to pack tightly.

Point is not to require it, but to make it possible in a reasonable way.
Agents aren't the best solution, but a random agent prevents LP farming of only the most valuable LP's, and means it can be done without introducing a new form of PvE, much as a form of PvE which enabled cooperation without forcing it or reducing profits would be great for all areas of space.

Well, I agree with you! Entosis-mechanisms gets rid of blobbing to do hit-point damage, but introduces blobbing to control the battlefield when entosising sov-structures. Status quo. And carriers? I can easily see Supers do this - can't be jammed, difficult for smaller groups like yours to kill them, they can ECM-burst both your DPS and logis. And the defenders have all the time in the world, they're not in a hurry.

So, yes, there will be blobbing again. Sadly.

But then blobbing has been the case all the time, entosis or no entosis - to gain control over the battlefield, you will need to blob in one way or another. Killing a ratter - conrol the battlefield by dropping and blob him with SBs, Recons and Black Ops. Small annoying 10-man Swedish pvp-gang in cruisers in Fountain - run away or blob them with Battleships. Usually run away though :-)