Ships & Modules

Automated testing does not account for player creativity. They also already have thin clients that they can spew numbers out of easily.

Problem with that thinking is that people will start to bring sufficent forces to alpha a titan and thats bad for business due to sheer costs and skill points.

The thing they fear is not fat fingering stuff its stuff that players do that gets around the most well thought out plans. Its like war, not all stratagies work.

So there is NO reason at all to deploy titans amirite? Thats a pretty neat way to beat your enemy supercap fleet.

Someone at some point must decide to deploy supers, but why would anyone do it if they wont do a thing that gives u any advantage considering its high cost?

Now, if you make structures vulnerable to supers/caps only, it would be ok I guess... Isn't that what everyone wants? Supers/caps beeing "alliance assets"? If your alliance wants sov, you have to assemble your supercap fleet.

With an XL, more like it fires Hurricanes or cruisers - in this case, at frigates.

Yeah, I don't know if I can agree with cutting down the damage it does with traversal at zero. I don't think a Rifter's gonna survive a Rupture shoved up its ass. Though the wording and mental image of that is hilarious.

Ok, but it's a bad one if doesnt come with a new role for them. I dont believe that trillions of isk and literally years worth of SP spent by ccp customers would be justified by the ability of RF'ing something 2 minutes faster than it would be if only subcaps were deployed

If CCP removes guns from titans (or remove its ability to fight subcaps, like done before with supercarriers), there would be 2 scenarios
-You have subcap superiority: No one wants to play with you, bcause they will end up with supers on the field doing nothing to your subcaps
-You have supercap superiority: No one needs to play with you, because you just wont have anything to do if they dont deploy caps besides dying a slow death

That seems fair to anyone?

Maybe this is a solution ...
Titans get XXL guns, dreads stick with current XL.

Upon reflection, I think I may have misinterpreted one of Greyscale's earlier comments

Shifting the signature term over to be a multiplier the range side of the formula, rather than the tracking side, would accomplish basically the same thing as my "switch sig resolution to angular" proposal; the main caveat is that it should probably have a cap of 1, just so we don't get silliness like frigates shooting blasters at battleships, at 40km, and being effectively in optimal. (Though it would be one way to get frigate snipers!)

It also has the benefit of not causing sniper ships to become ineffectual even against their own size class at extreme ranges (due to the angular cross-section getting teeny), though "highly-damped weapon mount" rigs to improve sig resolution at cost of tracking or something similar could be implemented as a fix (it'd be just one more stat sniper ships need to improve). Just shifting it over to the range formula instead is probably better. It's a ltitle less realistic than an angular accuracy/resolution, but given that the current system has gun mounts magically becoming able to pivot 100x faster when they're targeting a titan than when they're targeting a frigate, that's probably not a major concern. (Maybe it's the gravitational pull! :V)

It'd be a fairly major game balance change, and would probably need to be thought through carefully, but I think it could really improve the game long-term. In particular, it seems like it would be conducive to more interesting fleet doctrines, if AFs/ceptors were effectively invulnerable to opposing battleships regardless of how spread out the blob is (barring drones), necessitating destroyers to counter them, and so on up the lines. (Of course, it could also stagnate things even more, by virtue of making primarying the logi all but impossible and so rendering anything but "alpha the combat ships" even more pointless...)

Yeah, there's no reason for supercaps to have any WCS bonus. These are combat ships designed for PVP, they're not haulers or miners. Supercaps aren't special; no ship is. Promoting stabbed PVP in this fashion is absurd and fundamentally against not only the stated aim for supercaps to act as support to subcapitals, but it's also against one of the core tenets of Eve - that one newbie in a frigate really can make a difference.

Allow me to explain. Titans are mostly outright or partially bought with RL money via plex.

are you sure about that? i have little understanding of 0.0 politics but spending up to 200PLEX just to win at internet spaceships seems a little... excessive.

The idea of reducing damage simply because of sig size is unrealistic and very short sighted about combat. That means you can manipulate the damage further with target painters, etc while not reaching the objective of difficulty hitting outside a comfort zone. Basically, what you've suggested is a means of bypassing eve mechanics.

My fix is aimed at working within the mechanics, but actually making sense of what they are meant to do. Ships should not simply get a damage boost because of range. For every action, there is a reaction. Yes I can track it better, but no, i can't see it as well. I still should ultimately have the opportunity to project maximum damage under certain conditions.

Your proposal removes the possibility of maximum damage potential. Essentially your plan as I have understood it would suggest that a cannon ball would somehow mysteriously lose damage potential just because it was aimed at a fly instead of a building. The power should always be there, the difficulty accessing it should be the goal.

Your solution does not aim for this, mine does.