OdysseyBCHeader

The Great Battlecruiser Backfire

 
From the forums to the oh-so-hallowed halls of the CSM, there’s a growing movement to restrict Entosis Link modules to battlecruisers and up. I don’t know where it started, but it’s not hard to understand why this “BC+” proposal has gained so much traction among those aimed at “fixing” the [insert nickname of your choice] sovereignty system that came out with Aegis. A great deal of players involved in the defense of sovereign space are tired of chasing slippery ships from node to node and system to system. It may be interdiction-nullified interceptors, recons with oversized prop mods, or pretty much anything else that’s much better at running than it is at fighting. These ships are excellent at creating timers, but often have no intention of maintaining grid control now, or coming back to claim sovereignty later. Worse yet, catching or fighting them isn’t fun, even if it’s technically possible. The other reason BC+ gets so much love? People want battlecruisers, command ships, and battleships to get buffed. While zippy frigates, destroyers, and cruisers romp around the map shrugging off lock attempts and bomb damage, their larger subcap cousins seem to have passed their heyday. BC/BS hulls also represent a substantial ISK investment, it would be so cool if they were given a special role in sovereignty warfare. They couldn’t run at the first sign of danger, and they’d cost the owner real ISK if lost, meaning they wouldn’t be thrown around trivially. It’s the perfect solution… that is, until you think about what the repercussions might be on the rest of EVE Online.

Not Everything Is About Sov

Before BC+ became popular, it was not uncommon to hear someone suggest that Entosis Links be limited to battleships and higher, BS+ if you will. It had all the benefits of the BC+ proposal… until someone brought up wormholes. Because with the exception of the Nestor (a.k.a. the best Mobile Depot variant in the game), battleships can’t go through lots of low-class wormhole entrances. The BS+ proposal would therefore mean that the Citadels of many wormhole groups would be 100% safe from any corporation that wasn’t willing to make the Nestor its flagship! This ridiculous situation is the natural outcome of such a short-sighted, sov-focused solution. People wanted to fix Aegis sov so badly they forgot wormholes exist, or that Citadels were coming soon. Whoops! Those same players probably didn’t put much thought into the long-term goals for structures in general, which is a shame since several BC+ supporters are CSMs who’ve spent months looking at the same structure plans that I have. While most of those plans are NDA, the public outline shown at Fanfest should make it perfectly clear that Entosis could be the key interaction point for many, if not most, structures in the game: y0BPxaD So when people chant BC+ as a solution for sovereignty, they’re also requiring a battlecruiser or battleship for interactions that range from Citadel bashes to drive-by structure destruction. Without a battlecruiser, what will your group do when it encounters a juicy Research Center or Assembly HQ deep in some Bob-forsaken backwater system? You’ll be forced to either burn back who knows how many systems, or pass up on meaningful content. You could have a fleet of 500 Confessors, but you can’t touch a Listening Outpost because you don’t have a single Myrmidon! BC+ supporters probably also forgot that he Entosis Link can be used on certain NPC structures to uncover large amounts of in-game lore. That really cool interaction, and any other ones that haven’t been discovered or implemented quite yet, would suddenly be gated from half the ships in EVE. Sure it’s not “important” in the same way sov is, but “important” is subjective in a sandbox game. Luckily there’s no incoming pile of juicy, Drifter-related content! The point of all this is that people asking for hull limitations on Entosis Links may not have thought about or don’t know the full scope CCP’s plans for the Entosis Link. They’re thinking about the status quo of sovereignty, and that’s about it. We don’t know what structures will require Entosis. We don’t know what lore and PVE elements will require Entosis. We don’t know if anything that interacts with Entosis will ever be put in “Tripnull” shattered wormholes, where only frigates can fly. Players are asking for something with potentially enormous, long-term ramifications for multiple aspects of EVE Online. Because of trollceptors.

Nullify The Real Issues

Don’t take my dismissal of the BC+ proposal as a dismissal of the problems it’s trying to address. While I shed no tears for alliances concerned about losing an XL Citadel to a rookie ship, slippery vessels that don’t generate fights and don’t establish grid control are working directly against the goals of Aegis sov. If the actual problem with current Entosis Mechanics is interdiction nullification or ridiculously fast ships, why not address these problems head-on? CCP has already taken an initial stab at this with a preliminary 4k/s speed cap for Entosis boats, but I wouldn’t be against more extreme measures. Activating an Entosis Link de-activates your propulsion modules. Without a prop mod, whether it’s an oversized AB or a microwarp drive, you’re not going to see interdictors or T3s burning around the map at 10k, 4k, or any kilometers a second while capturing stuff. The catch of course is that you can use these modules to full combat effect before and after linking – so you must simply achieve grid control before trying to hack a structure. Or if you’ve started hacking and enemies land on grid, you’ve just invoked the last rule of Fight Club: You have to fight. Alternatively, equipping an Entosis Link disables interdiction nullification. This should be self-explanatory, but combined with speed caps, is just meant to make evasive ships easier to catch. Another possible angle is to simply make Entosis Linking with smaller ships hugely inefficient, annoying, or time-consuming. The easiest way to do this would be to give subcaps capture multipliers similar to those that capital ships currently have (or some other time-extending mechanism). For instance:
  • Capital ships retain a 5x multiplier
  • Battlecruisers and battleships retain a 1x multiplier
  • Cruisers gain a 2x multiplier
  • Destroyers gain a 2.5x multiplier
  • Frigates gain a 3x multiplier
  • Other ships (mining barges, etc.) get a 4x multiplier
This approach keeps Entosis available on all hulls, but rewards players who choose to use BC or BS hulls.

Let’s Keep Our Options Open

These solutions don’t gimp anyone’s fit. They don’t stop explorers from poking around Drifter relics. They keep the spirit of Fozzie’s grid control in mind. More importantly, they’re organic, sandbox-friendly approaches, the type that are already common in EVE Online. You can, for instance, mine without a mining barge, but it’s a hilarious waste of time. You can scan signatures in a Vexor, but it takes longer than using a Stratios. You can shoot damage-based structures with a rookie ship, but it’ll be a long time before that POCO goes into reinforcement! I can’t endorse a proposal that only considers sovereignty while completely ignoring the current and future possibilities of EVE. There are better ways to tweak Aegis sov. There are better ways to buff battlecruisers. Let’s not close the Entosis door before we learn what’s on the other side.
Tags: Aegis soverignty, Chance, csm, Entosis, Fozziesov, Wingspan TT

About the author

Chance Ravinne

As the CEO of WINGSPAN Delivery Services, Chance Ravinne has committed himself to bringing content (and torpedoes) to unsuspecting pilots throughout New Eden. His uncanny need to jump blindly into new situations has fueled his adventures as a covert ops pilot and all-around stealth bastard. You can follow him pretty much everywhere @WINGSPANTT.

  • ControlBlue

    The problem here is you have one module that is trying to be universal but still touching into areas that are vastly different.

    The limitation that would make the module healthy for one space would make it atrocious for the other.

    Seems like the best thing to do is to have a link that is dedicated to Null-sec and Sov-contesting instead of trying to be everything to everyone.

    • Dirk MacGirk

      there’s a crazy option. Different mods for different things, but based on the entosis tech? Unless the roamers then gripe that they’d need to be carrying all of them to do all the things they might stumble across

  • Niden

    Angry-mustache had this idea on reddit re this, which I liked:

    “Resize entosis modules into small, medium, and large.
    Sov structures are large only, or heavily penalized for small and medium.”

    • 5pitf1re

      I like this idea a lot however, making uncatchable ships catchable is still something they need to look at regardless of the sov wand to be honest.

      • WiNGSPANTT

        True, but then the small entosis link could have specific qualities that would prevent that, without hurting the medium or large versions.

  • Michael Majere

    Why are sov members only thinking of sov for Entosis, look at its billing by CCP. Every article “sov by other means” , sov, sov, sov where it comes to entosis. While yes hi-sec and whs get citadels to. Hell I never heard of using entosis on npc structures until now . But the magic word that fozzie and CCP keep front line is sov..sov..sov. If you wonder why the community has a narrow vision on the link look no further then the developers pushing it to us. All the link is billed is as a sov tool. CCP does not advertise any other uses. But we know entosis does sov. All the blogs are sov. Want the communities field of view wider. Look no further then your CSM peers and the devs you bridge between. Show the product your pushing on us does more then one thing. Minds will expand.

  • Paul

    What about making the entosis link multiplier a sliding scale dependent on speed? A ship sitting still would get 1x and then let’s say for every 1k k/s you add to the multiplier. So those 4k a second ships get a 4x multiplier.

    • Dirk MacGirk

      because the troll would sit still until someone came in then burn off and not care. I mean, it would limit their ability to trolltosis right in an enemy’s face, but not really get rid of the troll altogether.

      • Paul

        Good point

  • Christopher Gargani

    I think it might be interesting if having the entosis link active added a cruiser’s-worth of mass onto your ship.

  • Justin

    If you live in WHs and don’t have a single BC you’re fucking bad and don’t deserve content, seriously.

    So many whines and complaints from lazy, entitled children these days who want their solutions handed to them instead of providing them to themselves.

    And I’ve been living in WH’s for over a year now and we’ve never had a chain more than 5-10 WH’s… seriously, you’re a whiner, harden the FUCK up.

    • WiNGSPANTT

      What does having a Battlecruiser have to do with HTFU? I have a stack of Black Ops lying around, doesn’t mean I think they should be required to take down mining platforms.

      • Dirk MacGirk

        WTF. When someone tells you to HTFU, you just have to do it. It’s the trump card being played

      • Justin

        omg moron, do you even know what you wrote, or did someone write this article for you?

        “Without a battlecruiser, what will your group do when it encounters a juicy Research Center or Assembly HQ deep in some Bob-forsaken backwater system? You’ll be forced to either burn back who knows how many systems, or pass up on meaningful content. You could have a fleet of 500 Confessors, but you can’t touch a Listening Outpost because you don’t have a single Myrmidon!”

        All I’m reading is “WAA WAA WHAT IF WE DIDN’T BRING A BC, WAA WAA I HAVE TO BURN 3J BACK TO OUR HOME HOLE TO PICK UP A BC, WAA WAA I’M A WHINY BABY WAA WAA”.

        This is EVE, choices have CONSEQUENCES and some of those consequences is MISSED OPPORTUNITY. So stop your fucking WHINING, you fucking whiny fucks are ruining a hardcore game and turning it into candy wonderland.

        • WiNGSPANTT

          Haha dude you could look at it the opposite way. The people holding sov are the ones whining, whining that there are too many timers, they have to fight and catch annoying ships, and their enemies are inconveniencing them without providing real content.

          The “whining” is completely subjective. Nothing about my post is whining unless you think “don’t make a game change with unintended consequences” is a whining statement.

        • Kamar Raimo

          I think it’s you who doesn’t know what he is writing.

          All Chance did was pointing out that we could be painting ourselves into a corner if we were to restrict Entosis Links to BCs and above. He could be wrong, but at least he tries to think about it and offer another perspective instead of calling people names, telling them to HTFU and declaring that they don’t deserve content because they are not playing the game in a prescribed way.

          • Justin

            Etcetc

  • Helena Khan

    We already have a mass increase function (HIC). It should be possible to do something similar with the entosis module. Turning and acceleration slow enough that an intercept is possible even if the top end speed is higher than yours. The range of the T2 entosis mod might make this tougher, but in any case manual piloting, skill vs skill, should be the defining factor. A (large) fixed amount will hurt smaller ships more…

  • Helena Khan

    We already have a mass increase function (HIC). It should be possible to do something similar with the entosis module. Turning and acceleration slow enough that an intercept is possible even if the top end speed is higher than yours. The range of the T2 entosis mod might make this tougher, but in any case manual piloting, skill vs skill, should be the defining factor. A (large) fixed amount will hurt smaller ships more…

  • Very good point about seeing entosis only through the new sov lens. Consider limiting nullification effects, rather tha n removing them altogether. Nullification could be prevented only when warping out, and not when landing, or the reverse (imho interceptirs should not have e same nullification as T3). Time multiplier based on hull is also a great idea with BC getting the best multiplier.

  • GFY

    Go fuck yourself already. The only reason you became CSM was due to your youtube popularity, and getting your knee’s dirty. Its not like you even know much of shit about the game.

    Not sure why youre even sticking your nose into the SOV debate. You live in hisec, and pretend to be a wormholer.

    • WiNGSPANTT

      I know this is crazy but maybe I became popular on YouTube because people liked my approach to EVE and my impact on bringing players to it?

      And hey if you think I live in hisec that’s cute. Feel free to run a locator agent on me any day and see what they say.

      • GFY

        lol.

      • BroodAlpha

        I voted for you for CSM because you weren’t the standard CSM rep that had lived in sov null for 200 years and was bitter as fuck. You also weren’t a CSM clone who just agrees with everything CCP says and tries to explain their reasoning to the plebians and you were someone that actively engages in PvP and moulds the sandbox to work for them.

        I voted for you because you’re new, because you aren’t 100% familiar with all aspects of the game. Because this fresh set of eyes might drop something useful into the ocean of shit that is players like this guy.

        Anyway, if you can make this game work for your particular style (cloaky wormhole bullshit) then you wouldn’t be suggesting alternatives for a system unless you couldn’t see another way around it.

        I like your points and I’m glad you collated them from when I asked you (and you briefly outlined them) on reddit (paradoxzerg).

        I think that progress with the Entosis module and it’s associated mechanics is going to be slow but hopefully it’ll end up manageable soon and then we can deal with it for the months it takes for CCP to get it right after player feedback.

        I dislike this new sov system and I think Dominion was better but ti-di ruined it. For obvious reasons CCP can’t just double their processing speed to be rid of ti-di.

        These steps outlined are all good ways of band-aiding it for now. But I really think more drastic steps are necessary. Nice to see people discussing it and providing feedback in a way that CCP can see, take on board and implement instead of ‘ERMAHGERD IT’S SHIT FUK U FOZZY [INSERT PERSONAL ATTACK HERE]’

        Nice article.

    • Seraph IX Basarab

      GFY you’re part of a shit tier “pirate” alliance that camps the same two gates for over a year now. Even Chance’s newbie bombers shit all over you in terms of relevance.

      Go sit back down in the corner and don’t speak again.

      • GFY

        Dont assume, retard.

        • Seraph IX Basarab

          What is there to assume? Your alliance is the pimple on the asshole of lowsec. You’re shit, your alliance is shit, and you don’t accomplish shit. And here you are posting like a dickhead being disrespectful out of the blue, about a topic that has nothing to do with your shit tier alliance because you guys do most of your pvp in the heart of empire space in Genesis lowsec of all places.

          Seriously though how do you lose that fight? It was 7 on 7, you had better ships, you even had a Falcon and you got wrecked on your own home turf. BTW I heard Lich Reaper was gobbling up all your moons. How are you going to be pirates and be poor at the same time?

          • GFY

            Your assumption of who I am. But kudos to you for sucking BL cock.

          • Seraph IX Basarab

            LOL right ok who are you? As if it’s a secret.

          • GFY

            Then who am I?

          • Seraph IX Basarab

            Some shit tier cunt named Giuseppe R Raimondo

          • GFY

            Hahahahahaha. Thats amusing.

          • Seraph IX Basarab

            AKA Nobody.

          • GFY

            Only you have been a member of EE, not me.

          • Seraph IX Basarab

            I’ve never been in EE.

            Hide all you want, nobody cares.

          • GFY

            Thats why you didnt try and rent lowsec while with them. Fuck, youre dumb as shit.

          • Seraph IX Basarab

            My old alliance, SYJ was allied with EE, but I was never in EE. And I never rented lowsec with them. That was an SYJ operation. At least try to be a little smarter next time.

          • GFY

            SYJ….EE..same difference.

          • Seraph IX Basarab

            Yeah if you’re as fucking stupid as you with no ability to discern sure you can say that.

          • GFY

            lol.

          • well geez then hotshot put your pod where your mouth is. at least everyone knows who Seraph is. You hide behind a private profile and shitpoast all over everyone who doesnt know who you are. Unless you show and tell, you’re just a shit talking neckbeard from BFE.

    • Kamar Raimo

      If you are so much better why don’t you run for CSM?

      Oh wait, I forgot, your social skills are below those of a baboon and you have nothing constructive to say.

      Go back to the trollcave you crawled from.

  • Ben Ishikela

    As i see it, its not really a Question of Entosis fitted, activated or not. The fact that some ships are “uncatchable” (the effort outweigths the gain) is also a problem in other areas. Although it was good for my wallet, look at FactionWarfare. Let me call it the Troll-Farmer. its a pain to deal with it. A stabbed, “cloaked” or really fast ship is nearly immune. Its therefore the go to strategy when wanting to be isk efficient. Cant judge them.
    Also stabs overshadow the need for scouting/teamwork/altwork in logistics and they teach newbros to fly bad.

    Problem: There are some fits possible that disincentify conflict. They need to be dealt with.
    (oversized props, stabs, ?afk-cloak?, nullification … ) <— issues that come up a lot anyway.

    (Also while i see "weaponized boredom" as powerful and a good strategy, it should be the opposite for the sake of the game.)

    Idea for props: One size only. Capacitor cost is mass/inertia dependend. Speed is multiple of base (or also mass). Fitting will be a percentage of ship's PG/CPU (or also mass). How does it sound?

  • briancnelson

    Oddly enough, and perhaps for the first time in public, I agree with Chance.

    -Thoric

  • fuckbluesec

    Restricting EL to big hulls is stupid because that would just make blobbing the attackers easy. Sounds like the usual nullbear whine. Your idea for EL to turn prop mods off is also retarded because it would basically mean that ELing in an actual combat ship would be close to impossible as you completely lose on-grid mobility. Losing a slot for the EL is already a big sacrifice. The 4k m/s cap I think is rather nice solution for extreme speed fits.

    • WiNGSPANTT

      Thinking more about the prop mod thing, you might be right. I was also (against the advice of my own article) thinking more about nodes and whatnot with it, whereas using a prop-less entosis on a Citadel = you are dead.

  • Tao BeiFun

    Man….. 00 inst everything in eve…
    this sov crap, cant hear it anymore….
    random-00-guy:
    I want space i can hold, cries
    – gets it
    I want grinding, cries

    – gets it
    I don´t want grinding, cries
    – gets it
    Cries, cries, cries….
    They get changes and what they want, still they only complain and cry without thinking what their wrong approach does to the rest of the game.

    I love what ccp is doing with sov, entosis and so on, also i think they have a lot more in their pocket with this, which is connected to each other. So lets wait and see and adept.
    STOP THE FUCKING CRY TRAIN AND PLEASE DON’T DROWN IN YOUR OWN TEARS.

  • Saint Michael’s Soul

    We’ve just had a pass at the mechanics, let’s see how they settle in and then, only if needed, should we return to the discussion table.

  • I was leaning more towards the BC+ side myself until I read your article. I haven’t fully changed my mind yet, but at least you’ve given me something to think about. I didn’t know about the NPC interaction possibilities with EL’s so thanks, I learned something today.

  • X Gallentius

    I think structure-based weapons that can blap frigate sized hulls is the eventual answer here – and aren’t they already on the books for future release? Enjoy the chaos now because it’ll get boring again once somebody can dock their alt in a Citadel and then blap Entosis-fitted hulls at will.