These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Assembly Hall

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

[Proposal] Titan Balance (Updated 3/13/2012)
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Tyran Scorpi
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#21 - 2012-02-14 03:10:20 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
Counter proposal:

(1) Admit Titans were a huge mistake, even though they sounded :awesome: at the time


This part at least I agree with.

Asuka Solo wrote:

I fully support expanding capitals and super capital hull ranges.

But I flat out reject this proposal.

Titans are not broken. They were designed to be giant dicks and they are working exactly as intended.

Blobbing Rifter pilots crying about blobbing supers and...........


Please do not make a broad assumption about me based on nothing other than the alliance I am in. Check my alliance history if you would like.

I have been tossing this idea around among friends and corp mates for more than a year in various similar incarnations. I was considering proposing this change long, long before we app'ed to test.

Like I have stated before, if you are going to make a negative post in this thread please give me some valid reasons for your disapproval that focus on the topic.
Bugsy VanHalen
Society of lost Souls
#22 - 2012-02-16 17:59:39 UTC
Tyran Scorpi wrote:
Titan balancing has been an issue for some time, and from reading the recent CSM meeting notes with CCP, it seems that there still isn't a good resolution in sight. I have a suggestion that may help with that, but I want to make a few observations first.


#1 Just fixing the Titan tracking problem will not fix Titans as a whole.

#2 Each ship has a role that it was designed for/excels at, with the exception of the Titan and Tech 3 cruisers.

#3 The Titan currently has the capabilities to perform up to 4 different roles: Logistics(Bridging/Clone Vat), Combat(Capital Weapons), Command(Gang Links/Titan Fleet Bonus), and Super-weapon platform.


My proposal to the the CSM is that the Titan be broken down into 3 different ships, each flying away with some of the capabilities of the original ship.

The Titan would retain its super-weapon, and the fleet bonuses. (Titan mkII)

The first new hull would get the clone vat bay and bridging capabilities. (Mothership)

That leaves the combat capabilities for the last new hull. (Superdreadnought)

Each of these hulls would need a little fleshing out to make them fully realized as a ship of their own, but this breakdown puts us well on the way towards that goal. The Superdreadnaught could have 6 gun slots, the ability to siege, plus some/all of the titan's bonus to capital weapon damage. The Mothership could have bi-directional bridging to a cyno in addition to its clone vat bay, but force it to deploy or enter a "triage" like mode to use its bridges. The Titan mkII would probably require a rework of the super-weapon. Possibly something along the lines of a focused beam weapon that ramps up the damage based on the time spent firing at a single target. And while I think that it shouldn't be able to fire at sub caps, I do think that ships that make the mistake of flying through the path of a beam in progress should be affected in some way shape of form. The amount of havoc that the doomsday causes on the target ship should also cause some kind of warp scrambling effect or energy neutralization as well. (This may also solve the current lack of a dedicated capital class heavy tackler)

In all, this would bring us to having:
Carriers, Dreads, Supercarriers, Superdreads, and Titan mkII's for combat.
Freighters, Jump Freighters, Rorquals, and Motherships for logistics and industry.

The biggest drawback to this plan that I can see is figuring out what would happen to current titan pilot's ships, and getting the new ships out there to be used without much downtime. I have a few ideas for resolving this, but it would turn this post into more of a wall O' text than it is already.

Let me know what you think, and I can go into more detail as needed.


I would add to motherships that they do not have drones (fighters, or fighter bombers) but have a huge ship maintenance array that can hold a large number of sub caps including battleship hulls. like a super super carrier only without the drones. the drones would be the other pilots ships docking in the maintenance array.

This could even be expanded where players can actually dock inside the mothership and sit in a pilots lounge while the mothership jumps to the staging area. so they go with there ship for the ride rather than the current mechanics of docking your ship and being left outside in your pod.
Tyran Scorpi
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#23 - 2012-02-17 01:21:29 UTC  |  Edited by: Tyran Scorpi
Bugsy VanHalen wrote:

I would add to motherships that they do not have drones (fighters, or fighter bombers) but have a huge ship maintenance array that can hold a large number of sub caps including battleship hulls. like a super super carrier only without the drones. the drones would be the other pilots ships docking in the maintenance array.

This could even be expanded where players can actually dock inside the mothership and sit in a pilots lounge while the mothership jumps to the staging area. so they go with there ship for the ride rather than the current mechanics of docking your ship and being left outside in your pod.



An excellent suggestion, I will add it to additional thoughts rather than expanding the original post.

EDIT: I added it, but after thinking about it some more it occurs to me that this is kind of redundant for a ship with bridging capabilities, were you suggesting this instead of the capability to bridge?
Mechael
Tribal Liberation Distribution and Retail
#24 - 2012-02-20 08:57:00 UTC
Giant, unstoppable, pwnmobiles are not fun. Turn Titans into something resembling mobile outposts, and remove the bulk of their combat capabilities entirely. The OP's idea is terrible.

Whether or not you win the game matters not.  It's if you bought it.
Tyran Scorpi
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#25 - 2012-02-21 18:44:34 UTC
Mechael wrote:
Giant, unstoppable, pwnmobiles are not fun. Turn Titans into something resembling mobile outposts, and remove the bulk of their combat capabilities entirely. The OP's idea is terrible.


This is not really possible, as we would effectively removing a ship that some people have invested a lot of time and money to train into. We need to find a way to adjust, change, and re-balance them, without making them not worth flying, otherwise we might as well just remove them from the game, at which point we would still have a lot of upset titan pilots.
Mechael
Tribal Liberation Distribution and Retail
#26 - 2012-02-21 19:32:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Mechael
Tyran Scorpi wrote:
This is not really possible, as we would effectively removing a ship that some people have invested a lot of time and money to train into. We need to find a way to adjust, change, and re-balance them, without making them not worth flying, otherwise we might as well just remove them from the game, at which point we would still have a lot of upset titan pilots.


Supercarriers - giant corp hangars, capable of replacing losses on the fly. Ships only so that they don't step on jump freighter's toes. I'm thinking a couple fleets worth of losses, combined with a megatank to keep all of those expensive ships safe. You get popped, you pod over to the nearest supercarrier and hop in a new ship, already fitted and ready to rock. Need to change from your T3 fleet to your BS fleet on the fly? Great. Easy. Remove the drones. Your fleet is your drones. Still does logi. Make the clone vat bay worthwhile. Requires subcaps to be useful.

Titans - Jump bridges and doomsdays. Buff the doomsdays up to be a reasonable counter to the new style of supercarrier. Remove the turrets.

And get rid of the EWar immunity on both.

Whether or not you win the game matters not.  It's if you bought it.
Tyran Scorpi
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#27 - 2012-02-21 22:53:12 UTC  |  Edited by: Tyran Scorpi
Mechael wrote:

Supercarriers - giant corp hangars, capable of replacing losses on the fly.


Supercarriers are pretty well balanced at the moment, and I don't think they need to be changed up again this quickly. However, speaking directly to your idea, I don't see how this would be any better than getting podded to your station, grabbing a new ship and taking a mothership bridge back into the frey.

Mechael wrote:

Need to change from your T3 fleet to your BS fleet on the fly?


This goes beyond the scope of my proposal as it would affect fights between subcap fleets more than capitals.
(Either way, I am not sure I like the implications of this idea.)

Mechael wrote:

Titans - Jump bridges and doomsdays. Buff the doomsdays up to be a reasonable counter to the new style of supercarrier. Remove the turrets.

And get rid of the EWar immunity on both.


Superweapons are one of the biggest problems with titans at the moment, and making it capable of popping a supercarrier? Really bad idea. My suggestion included a damage buff for the superweapon via a tradeoff that turned it into a damage over time ability that slowly increased as you continued to fire at a single target.

I would not be opposed to supers losing their EWAR immunity, but in exchange they should get fairly impressive stats to replace them. 50 warp core strength and enough sensor strength to require at least 20 subcaps to affect them would probably suffice.

EDIT: If this were to happen I also think that regular capitals should also get some love, say 5 warp core strength and double their current sensor strength.
Mechael
Tribal Liberation Distribution and Retail
#28 - 2012-02-22 02:36:19 UTC
Tyran Scorpi wrote:

Mechael wrote:

Need to change from your T3 fleet to your BS fleet on the fly?


This goes beyond the scope of my proposal as it would affect fights between subcap fleets more than capitals.
(Either way, I am not sure I like the implications of this idea.)


My point is that supercaps (all caps, really) ought to be there to provide extremely heavy duty support to a much larger subcap fleet. When they become wrecking balls in and of themselves, we wind up like we are today. The design should be such that it is seldom a good idea to blob capital ships without a much, much larger blob of subcaps in tow.

Whether or not you win the game matters not.  It's if you bought it.
Nylith Empyreal
Sutar Rein
#29 - 2012-02-22 05:53:54 UTC
I always thought the objective should be more about fleet synergy, versus; 1k bs's vs. 300 caps, 500hacs, vs. 100 titans or some other random as number / fleet combo. Shouldn't the objective be giving every ship a role to fit the perfect fleet? Utilizing different race techniques to give variations and changes of, instead of MOAR DEEPS! or MOAR EHP! speed etc etc. shouldn't we be encouraging 'flanking' with say gallente ships, holding the line with amarr ships, coming around and firing cars up their asses with minmatar, while providing ewar, ranged support via caldari?

I would honestly like to see some kind of diminishing return for having a shitload of the same exact ship in a fleet engagement. Instead of giving bs's / caps or whatever ship a myriad of roles draw it down a bit. Hell a rock paper scissors balance should be in order. I kind of hope that weird random general discussion thread about diminishing returns on focus firing is added, give some ship list, give a job description institute officers, change channel priority and turn this into all those awsome fleet fights we see on the videos, hell that empyrean banner on the website was a nice rendition of what i would love to see. Can we work this way?

Who's the more foolish the fool or the fool who replies to him?
Mechael
Tribal Liberation Distribution and Retail
#30 - 2012-02-22 06:53:23 UTC
Nylith Empyreal wrote:
I always thought the objective should be more about fleet synergy, versus; 1k bs's vs. 300 caps, 500hacs, vs. 100 titans or some other random as number / fleet combo. Shouldn't the objective be giving every ship a role to fit the perfect fleet? Utilizing different race techniques to give variations and changes of, instead of MOAR DEEPS! or MOAR EHP! speed etc etc. shouldn't we be encouraging 'flanking' with say gallente ships, holding the line with amarr ships, coming around and firing cars up their asses with minmatar, while providing ewar, ranged support via caldari?

I would honestly like to see some kind of diminishing return for having a shitload of the same exact ship in a fleet engagement. Instead of giving bs's / caps or whatever ship a myriad of roles draw it down a bit. Hell a rock paper scissors balance should be in order. I kind of hope that weird random general discussion thread about diminishing returns on focus firing is added, give some ship list, give a job description institute officers, change channel priority and turn this into all those awsome fleet fights we see on the videos, hell that empyrean banner on the website was a nice rendition of what i would love to see. Can we work this way?


I'll second this. IMO it can all be done with a proper balancing of hulls, no need to enforce weird things like diminishing returns on focus fire or weird stacking penalties for having multiple identical hulls in the same fleet. Just get the ships themselves right and the rest will follow.

Whether or not you win the game matters not.  It's if you bought it.
Smiling Menace
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#31 - 2012-02-22 10:51:14 UTC  |  Edited by: Smiling Menace
Katalci wrote:
There is nothing wrong with titans as they are -- the problem is that the majority of people are too stupid to counter them.

Tinu Moorhsum wrote:
hey guys **** non-sovholders and small alliances

This is a worse idea than the OP


Oh really?

The only counter at the moment to Titans and Super Carrier blobs is more Titans and Super Carriers.

You are right in that the only alliances that will bring their Cap fleets to fights in any significant numbers are PL and Raiden so no-one else is countering them at the moment.

At the moment Super Carriers and Titan's are an 'IWIN' button for these alliances. However, that will change as the other alliances catch up with their own Capital fleets and can out blob them.

Let's see who whines about them needing nerfed then.

I do think Titans are fine as they are with exception to the turrets. They really shouldn't have them.
Tallian Saotome
Nuclear Arms Exchange Inc.
#32 - 2012-02-22 11:16:52 UTC
Nylith Empyreal wrote:
I always thought the objective should be more about fleet synergy, versus; 1k bs's vs. 300 caps, 500hacs, vs. 100 titans or some other random as number / fleet combo. Shouldn't the objective be giving every ship a role to fit the perfect fleet? Utilizing different race techniques to give variations and changes of, instead of MOAR DEEPS! or MOAR EHP! speed etc etc. shouldn't we be encouraging 'flanking' with say gallente ships, holding the line with amarr ships, coming around and firing cars up their asses with minmatar, while providing ewar, ranged support via caldari?

I would honestly like to see some kind of diminishing return for having a shitload of the same exact ship in a fleet engagement. Instead of giving bs's / caps or whatever ship a myriad of roles draw it down a bit. Hell a rock paper scissors balance should be in order. I kind of hope that weird random general discussion thread about diminishing returns on focus firing is added, give some ship list, give a job description institute officers, change channel priority and turn this into all those awsome fleet fights we see on the videos, hell that empyrean banner on the website was a nice rendition of what i would love to see. Can we work this way?

Problem with diminishing returns in eve is that people will abuse it. Ship can only have x incoming locks? Everyone lock all but one of your max targets with a friendly. Diminishing returns based on how many people are shooting at that ship? Everyone lock up the enemy primary and use your one small arty on him to drive those returns to 0.

Any restriction based on pure numbers can be abused, and in eve we are SUPPOSED to be abusing the systems for our advantage, so any system has to be set up to avoid that.

Inappropriate signature removed, CCP Phantom.
Tallian Saotome
Nuclear Arms Exchange Inc.
#33 - 2012-02-22 11:19:40 UTC
Smiling Menace wrote:
Katalci wrote:
There is nothing wrong with titans as they are -- the problem is that the majority of people are too stupid to counter them.

Tinu Moorhsum wrote:
hey guys **** non-sovholders and small alliances

This is a worse idea than the OP


Oh really?

The only counter at the moment to Titans and Super Carrier blobs is more Titans and Super Carriers.

You are right in that the only alliances that will bring their Cap fleets to fights in any significant numbers are PL and Raiden so no-one else is countering them at the moment.

At the moment Super Carriers and Titan's are an 'IWIN' button for these alliances. However, that will change as the other alliances catch up with their own Capital fleets and can out blob them.

Let's see who whines about them needing nerfed then.

I do think Titans are fine as they are with exception to the turrets. They really shouldn't have them.

What would make sense for titans is to have a massive number of small FoF missile launchers. If you are piloting a ship that big, individual subcaps should be beneath your notice, and should be dealt with my automated systems.

Automated systems are always pretty incompetent ;)

Inappropriate signature removed, CCP Phantom.
NimBetu Cayal
The Vorlon Empire
#34 - 2012-02-22 12:19:33 UTC
Titans are not broken.

A Alliance/Corporation spend that much time(a few weeks) and ISK (About 60Bill) + the buildingtime.
I really think that the Titan platform should be more then a mobile outpost or oversized jumpbridge.

They are titans for christ sake.

They are tha largest ships and most expencive to by ingame.
Naturally they should be awsome ships.

Titan neft Proposals we see after the last change is only an attempt to make them useless like the old Motherships.
Seems like some "Super Haters" is set on getting them nerfed so badly that none wants fo fly/build them.
The whole idea behind the titans was to be a Giant in the playground.

Look at the current war.
You have a Large Coalition CFC against the smaller Tech Team. (4:1 ration nornally)

What we see is only way for the smaller Coalition to win is to Field as many Supers are they can.
we also see the Large coalition thinks this is unfair cause they feel they should win since they got more numbers.
By nerfing Titans we would see that the only way to win a war is to have twise the numbers then the other and Violá.

Then we have the argumant that a good FC can counter a larger fleet and win. This is true if the fleet is a little bigger thent the other. This is not the truth if one side has 800 and other has 350.
Dosent matter hos you "Counter" the other fleet, you will loose, unless you have something to even out the odds.

The much debated Titan Tracking Nerf would mean Titans wold not hit anything smaller then a Cap or possibly a BS sitting still. Yay that would be great.
Then we have two Super Cap Classes that only can Dish out there proper damage on capitals.
What a Huge waste of ISK thouse ships will be then.

I say the Titan Are just fine as they are now. Only need a sliglty larger Dronebay on SC's for bombers and Fighters.
Then we are Golden.
Tallian Saotome
Nuclear Arms Exchange Inc.
#35 - 2012-02-22 12:55:26 UTC
NimBetu Cayal wrote:
Titans are not broken.

A Alliance/Corporation spend that much time(a few weeks) and ISK (About 60Bill) + the buildingtime.
I really think that the Titan platform should be more then a mobile outpost or oversized jumpbridge.

They are titans for christ sake.

They are tha largest ships and most expencive to by ingame.
Naturally they should be awsome ships.

Titan neft Proposals we see after the last change is only an attempt to make them useless like the old Motherships.
Seems like some "Super Haters" is set on getting them nerfed so badly that none wants fo fly/build them.
The whole idea behind the titans was to be a Giant in the playground.

Look at the current war.
You have a Large Coalition CFC against the smaller Tech Team. (4:1 ration nornally)

What we see is only way for the smaller Coalition to win is to Field as many Supers are they can.
we also see the Large coalition thinks this is unfair cause they feel they should win since they got more numbers.
By nerfing Titans we would see that the only way to win a war is to have twise the numbers then the other and Violá.

Then we have the argumant that a good FC can counter a larger fleet and win. This is true if the fleet is a little bigger thent the other. This is not the truth if one side has 800 and other has 350.
Dosent matter hos you "Counter" the other fleet, you will loose, unless you have something to even out the odds.

The much debated Titan Tracking Nerf would mean Titans wold not hit anything smaller then a Cap or possibly a BS sitting still. Yay that would be great.
Then we have two Super Cap Classes that only can Dish out there proper damage on capitals.
What a Huge waste of ISK thouse ships will be then.

I say the Titan Are just fine as they are now. Only need a sliglty larger Dronebay on SC's for bombers and Fighters.
Then we are Golden.

FYI, some of them beat us on multiple occasions without their supers., while heavily out numbered. And for that we cheer them on, the pilots they have who are not in supers DO have considerable skill, and their FCs know how to use ships effectively, and the right fleet comps will eat our standard doctrines with no problems.

The problem is some of those alliances don't do anything BUT drop supers, because no one can beat that. The problem isn't with losing, its with not being able to field a counter fleet other than more supers.

Titans are supposed to be the Giants in the playground, you are right, but there should not be that many of them on the field. Did you know that Raiden. can easily field enough titans to alpha several enemy titans in one shot? That should not be possible.

Titans are balanced around being rare, with any given entity only able to field a couple at a time, but we have a situation where entire feels are made up of nothing but titans.

Either nerf titans, or restrict them in some way so that only a few can be fielded at a time.

Oh, and super carriers? Yeah, they probably got nerfed enough. They are largely ineffective against subcap fleets, and competitive against cap fleets in the same way BSes are effective against cruiser/BC fleets.

Inappropriate signature removed, CCP Phantom.
Tanya Powers
Doomheim
#36 - 2012-02-22 13:10:17 UTC
Since your idea is not about "nerf nerf nerf" but structured idea so that supers/titans are diversified enough to counters to themselves I think it's a good idea.

It's always better to evolve than nerf just for the sake of nerfing, except ridiculous dread/titan tracking that should be reworked so they can't hit sub caps by any mean other than static targets.

+1 good idea for a start
Tyran Scorpi
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#37 - 2012-02-23 05:12:21 UTC
Mechael wrote:

My point is that supercaps (all caps, really) ought to be there to provide extremely heavy duty support to a much larger subcap fleet.


This will never happen with regular capitals as easy to get and field as they are. Supers are there to supply heavy support to fleets of carriers and dreads.

Tallian Saotome wrote:

Titans are supposed to be the Giants in the playground, but they are balanced around being rare.
Oh, and super carriers? Yeah, they probably got nerfed enough.


This.

Tanya Powers wrote:

Since your idea is not about "nerf nerf nerf" but structured idea so that supers/titans are diversified enough to counters to themselves I think it's a good idea.

It's always better to evolve than nerf just for the sake of nerfing, except ridiculous dread/titan tracking that should be reworked so they can't hit sub caps by any mean other than static targets.

+1 good idea for a start


Thank you, how would you go about improving on the concept?
Mechael
Tribal Liberation Distribution and Retail
#38 - 2012-02-23 09:03:41 UTC
Tyran Scorpi wrote:
This will never happen with regular capitals as easy to get and field as they are. Supers are there to supply heavy support to fleets of carriers and dreads.


I've yet to understand how anyone can say, "fleets of capital ships" ... or "capfleet" ... without realizing how stupid that sounds. Sure, maybe it works with the current game mechanics, but it sounds dumb as ****. I really don't think that having entire fleets of them is a good idea, and that they should be changed accordingly.

Whether or not you win the game matters not.  It's if you bought it.
Tallian Saotome
Nuclear Arms Exchange Inc.
#39 - 2012-02-23 09:32:25 UTC
Mechael wrote:
Tyran Scorpi wrote:
This will never happen with regular capitals as easy to get and field as they are. Supers are there to supply heavy support to fleets of carriers and dreads.


I've yet to understand how anyone can say, "fleets of capital ships" ... or "capfleet" ... without realizing how stupid that sounds. Sure, maybe it works with the current game mechanics, but it sounds dumb as ****. I really don't think that having entire fleets of them is a good idea, and that they should be changed accordingly.

Currently a capfleet(ignoring supers) is set up as a separate fleet to cut down on spies, and other logistical purposes. I usually see 50-100 in a fleet jumping in to support 300+man subcap fleets. While its a BIT top heavy with this distribution, it still falls in the range of reasonable because a 100 man strong fleet of carriers/dreads alone is gonna get eaten by a well built subcap fleet. Each normal cap has the battlefield footprint of 2-3 similar subcaps, tho carriers are alot more versatile than their subcap counterparts(logistics cruisers) because of the drone bay. Amazing how smartbombs make carrier pilots cry tho.

Inappropriate signature removed, CCP Phantom.
Tanya Powers
Doomheim
#40 - 2012-02-23 12:43:01 UTC
Tyran Scorpi wrote:
Thank you, how would you go about improving on the concept?


Well actully my experience with those is limited to observations on the field and when I'm a victim in my cruiser/BC hull with enough transversal no battleship would hit me even MWD on but the dam thing can...

That was the first wrong thing, the second one is the versatility of those ships and being able to logoff somewhere without being spotted, don't need a pos and once on line in that system you know big stuff is about to happen, then you see a thousand guys show up on your overview in a few seconds...then pouf they're gone, titan is gone, system clear.

Question this is a problem imho, how to improve it?-well take the bridge ability away seems like a nerf so maybe keep it but change this logofski mechanic: pilot will be logfofski, the ship unavailable for whoever try to board it, but the dam thing should stay there at the POS and visible. This would prevent such easy force projection that Titans provide.

Tracking anyone?

Last but non least, the speeds at witch Titans are being build/sold and the whole economics behind needed to achieve this that are obviously in need of deep changes and better control.

Those are imho some points that deserve to be discussed but has I stated from the beginning, I don't fly one, I don't own one and my conclusions are the result of in field observations/experience as neutral to everyone who shoots everything on the overview (ergh sometimes bues too, ZZP !! overview bug omfgpwnlolz)