These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Ships & Modules

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Titan changes - update

First post First post First post
Author
Ed Hardi
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#341 - 2012-03-29 00:04:42 UTC  |  Edited by: CCP Spitfire
Offtopic post removed. Spitfire
Brother Theos
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#342 - 2012-03-29 01:26:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Brother Theos
Shadoo wrote:
... have you considered removing the ability to fit turrets/launchers altogether and instead buffing the Doomsday Device cycle/dmg to match the overall DPS vs. capitals ...


This idea had considerable merit, however it seems unlikely to me that a Titan class ship would have no defenses against sub-capital ships at all. (visualize epic space battles scenes from movies, where high ROF, smaller caliber weaponry is fired from capital ships or space stations at smaller craft - search Youtube for "space battles")

I propose three changes
1.) XL weapons are removed from Titan
2.) the DD is buffed to compensate for loss of DPS against Capitals
3.) a new Titan-class weapon only is introduced that offers some (!) protection against sub-capitals

Perhaps something like a rapid-firing friend-or-foe missile battery. As this defense system spreads it's damage throughout a fleet, this would keep logistics pilots busy (which they find fun and keeps them feeling useful) and could add an interesting level of complexity to a fleet battle. The side fielding Titans has the advantage (in addition to Titan specific fleet bonuses) of keeping the opposition fleet's logistics busy, thereby decreasing the number of logistics repping the primary.

If corectly balanced, such a Titan only anti-subcapital weapon could solve the blapping sub-cap problem, not leave Titans completely vulnerable to sub-caps and add an interesting level of complexity to fleet battles.
Christopher Crusman
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#343 - 2012-03-29 03:14:46 UTC
I'm Down wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:

I'm Down wrote:

dude, the problem is not sig radius the way you've suggested.

[much text].


This is clearly out of scope for this release, but I'm having a think about it anyway. My major concern is that it seems like it's got exactly the same overall goal as range-based falloff (ie, outside your optimal damage zone, you find it progressively harder to hit things), and it's not immediately obvious why increasing the system's overall complexity in this way is better than just having another look at our optimal and falloff values (and the ways they can be affected).

[snip]
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.


If by 'having another look at our optimal and falloff values (and the ways they can be affected)' Greyscale means "scale optimal/falloff according to sig radius/resolution ratio", it still has the potential for a full-damage shot - the frigate would have to be both close and moving slowly, rather than the current "far away OR moving slowly". So, it has tracking and range (against a small target, at least) naturally counterbalance each other much more so than they do now, by giving you a shorter effective optimal - but that optimal can be increased by target painters. It seems quite reasonable to me.

I agree that scaling actual weapon damage by sigrad/sigres ratio wouldn't really be an optimal solution.
Kozmic
Arbora Nova
Reckless Contingency.
#344 - 2012-03-29 05:51:11 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:

This is clearly out of scope for this release, but I'm having a think about it anyway. My major concern is that it seems like it's got exactly the same overall goal as range-based falloff (ie, outside your optimal damage zone, you find it progressively harder to hit things), and it's not immediately obvious why increasing the system's overall complexity in this way is better than just having another look at our optimal and falloff values (and the ways they can be affected).
.


Because a turret damage formula that does all the damage to a stationary target and sig appropriate damage to a moving target is stupid. Missiles already do not work this way.
Ebisou
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#345 - 2012-03-29 08:16:41 UTC
I find I'm Down's arguments very compelling. Please don't dismiss his ideas as too hard to implement or too drastic. They would add a new level of realism to fleet fights and make it so you would need to bring a variety of ships to the field.

Start the change in XL guns first as a trial and see how it works then once you have a formula, put it on the test server that's what its there for. Do an actual test for once.
Sendo Jarix
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#346 - 2012-03-29 08:52:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Sendo Jarix
CCP Greyscale wrote:

This is clearly out of scope for this release, but I'm having a think about it anyway.


I don't think anyone really expects such a large change as that for the upcoming release but it would be great to see this being worked on to implement in the end of year expansion.

There are plenty of other suggestions here though that would make do in the mean time but leaving them with only the tracking nerf isn't going to change anything.
CCP Greyscale
C C P
C C P Alliance
#347 - 2012-03-29 10:17:34 UTC
I'm Down wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:

I'm Down wrote:

dude, the problem is not sig radius the way you've suggested.

[much text].


This is clearly out of scope for this release, but I'm having a think about it anyway. My major concern is that it seems like it's got exactly the same overall goal as range-based falloff (ie, outside your optimal damage zone, you find it progressively harder to hit things), and it's not immediately obvious why increasing the system's overall complexity in this way is better than just having another look at our optimal and falloff values (and the ways they can be affected).

.

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.


I'm not sure that you're talking about the thing I'm talking about. My above-quoted post isn't about "damage falloff based on sig", it's about the attribute called "falloff" that guns already have.
I'm Down
Perkone
Caldari State
#348 - 2012-03-29 10:32:58 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:
I'm Down wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:

I'm Down wrote:

dude, the problem is not sig radius the way you've suggested.

[much text].


This is clearly out of scope for this release, but I'm having a think about it anyway. My major concern is that it seems like it's got exactly the same overall goal as range-based falloff (ie, outside your optimal damage zone, you find it progressively harder to hit things), and it's not immediately obvious why increasing the system's overall complexity in this way is better than just having another look at our optimal and falloff values (and the ways they can be affected).

.

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.


I'm not sure that you're talking about the thing I'm talking about. My above-quoted post isn't about "damage falloff based on sig", it's about the attribute called "falloff" that guns already have.



I know the difference between the two, but earlier you suggested the difference in sig of the gun and sig of the target result in a falloff in damage similar to missiles.
CCP Greyscale
C C P
C C P Alliance
#349 - 2012-03-29 10:41:54 UTC
I'm Down wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:
I'm Down wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:

I'm Down wrote:

dude, the problem is not sig radius the way you've suggested.

[much text].


This is clearly out of scope for this release, but I'm having a think about it anyway. My major concern is that it seems like it's got exactly the same overall goal as range-based falloff (ie, outside your optimal damage zone, you find it progressively harder to hit things), and it's not immediately obvious why increasing the system's overall complexity in this way is better than just having another look at our optimal and falloff values (and the ways they can be affected).

.

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.


I'm not sure that you're talking about the thing I'm talking about. My above-quoted post isn't about "damage falloff based on sig", it's about the attribute called "falloff" that guns already have.



I know the difference between the two, but earlier you suggested the difference in sig of the gun and sig of the target result in a falloff in damage similar to missiles.


Yup, but that's not the concern I have with your above suggestion, hence the clarification of my meaning Smile
CynoNet Two
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#350 - 2012-03-29 10:47:57 UTC
Gypsio III wrote:
Innominate wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:
Harotak wrote:
I personally like the idea of completely removing supercap ewar immunity.


This is actually something we're evaluating at the moment, alongside a large built-in WCS bonus. The big issue is that it also makes it possible to use assistance modules on them (tracking links etc) which potentially undoes all the benefits.


How big of a WCS bonus? The whole reason that the ewar immunity removal can work is that it would force supercaps to control the field in order to leave, rather than being able to simply clear a few dictors and bail. +2 to stop one random rifter from catching a titan is one thing, while +10 would effectively be a supercap boost as the size of existing titan blobs makes jamming all of them impractical.


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.


I'd like to hear a CCP response to these points.
CCP Greyscale
C C P
C C P Alliance
#351 - 2012-03-29 11:13:16 UTC
CynoNet Two wrote:
Gypsio III wrote:
Innominate wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:
Harotak wrote:
I personally like the idea of completely removing supercap ewar immunity.


This is actually something we're evaluating at the moment, alongside a large built-in WCS bonus. The big issue is that it also makes it possible to use assistance modules on them (tracking links etc) which potentially undoes all the benefits.


How big of a WCS bonus? The whole reason that the ewar immunity removal can work is that it would force supercaps to control the field in order to leave, rather than being able to simply clear a few dictors and bail. +2 to stop one random rifter from catching a titan is one thing, while +10 would effectively be a supercap boost as the size of existing titan blobs makes jamming all of them impractical.


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.


I'd like to hear a CCP response to these points.


Not a a bonus to WCS, but rather a built-in thing like Blockade Runners have, so they're more vulnerable to tackling but can't be tackled by a single rifter, because that would be too big a balance swing for us to be comfortable with right now, particularly on top of the mooted already-huge EW-immunity removal. The reason we're considering immunity-removal is that it allows you to tracking-disrupt or sensor-damp titans, rather than to make them hugely vulnerable to warp disruption. Even if we gave them a built-in strength of 50, it's still a pretty sizable numeric nerf as we go from needing infinity MWDing rifters to ~13 to tackle a titan, and the infinite-strength point from bubbles, dictors and hictor points still work as currently.

Also, most ships are special in some regard, and titans more than most. That's why ship selection is interesting.
CynoNet Two
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#352 - 2012-03-29 11:23:47 UTC  |  Edited by: CynoNet Two
CCP Greyscale wrote:
Not a a bonus to WCS, but rather a built-in thing like Blockade Runners have, so they're more vulnerable to tackling but can't be tackled by a single rifter, because that would be too big a balance swing for us to be comfortable with right now, particularly on top of the mooted already-huge EW-immunity removal. The reason we're considering immunity-removal is that it allows you to tracking-disrupt or sensor-damp titans, rather than to make them hugely vulnerable to warp disruption. Even if we gave them a built-in strength of 50, it's still a pretty sizable numeric nerf as we go from needing infinity MWDing rifters to ~13 to tackle a titan, and the infinite-strength point from bubbles, dictors and hictor points still work as currently.

Also, most ships are special in some regard, and titans more than most. That's why ship selection is interesting.


If removal of the ewar immunity means they can be remote-boosted again (tracking links, etc) and warp strength is as crazy high as 50, then this would be a buff for titans. The level of coordination needed to hold a single titan with over a dozen ships would be hugely offset by the titan's ability to blap them with ease, and only needing to kill one or two to break free.

10 would be a more reasonable figure, and it would allow for either coordinated long-range warp disruptors or a handful of scrams to hold down titans. Having each additional 'spare' tackler add 50% of this rather than 10% makes a huge difference in the ability for titans to break themselves free.
Vile rat
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#353 - 2012-03-29 11:26:24 UTC
CynoNet Two wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:
Not a a bonus to WCS, but rather a built-in thing like Blockade Runners have, so they're more vulnerable to tackling but can't be tackled by a single rifter, because that would be too big a balance swing for us to be comfortable with right now, particularly on top of the mooted already-huge EW-immunity removal. The reason we're considering immunity-removal is that it allows you to tracking-disrupt or sensor-damp titans, rather than to make them hugely vulnerable to warp disruption. Even if we gave them a built-in strength of 50, it's still a pretty sizable numeric nerf as we go from needing infinity MWDing rifters to ~13 to tackle a titan, and the infinite-strength point from bubbles, dictors and hictor points still work as currently.

Also, most ships are special in some regard, and titans more than most. That's why ship selection is interesting.


If removal of the ewar immunity means they can be remote-boosted again (tracking links, etc) and warp strength is as crazy high as 50, then this would be a buff for titans. The level of coordination needed to hold a single titan with over a dozen ships would be hugely offset by the titan's ability to blap them with ease, and only needing to kill one or two to break free.



Yep. He's balancing for 1 titan which is the same hole they dug for themselves the last time. This fix isn't realistic.
John Maynard Keynes
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#354 - 2012-03-29 11:36:34 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:


Not a a bonus to WCS, but rather a built-in thing like Blockade Runners have, so they're more vulnerable to tackling but can't be tackled by a single rifter, because that would be too big a balance swing for us to be comfortable with right now, particularly on top of the mooted already-huge EW-immunity removal. The reason we're considering immunity-removal is that it allows you to tracking-disrupt or sensor-damp titans, rather than to make them hugely vulnerable to warp disruption. Even if we gave them a built-in strength of 50, it's still a pretty sizable numeric nerf as we go from needing infinity MWDing rifters to ~13 to tackle a titan, and the infinite-strength point from bubbles, dictors and hictor points still work as currently.

Also, most ships are special in some regard, and titans more than most. That's why ship selection is interesting.


Sounds good... However, if you remove E-War-immunity you have to give titans high sensor strength.
Kazanir
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#355 - 2012-03-29 11:38:11 UTC  |  Edited by: Kazanir
CCP Greyscale wrote:
Not a a bonus to WCS, but rather a built-in thing like Blockade Runners have, so they're more vulnerable to tackling but can't be tackled by a single rifter, because that would be too big a balance swing for us to be comfortable with right now, particularly on top of the mooted already-huge EW-immunity removal. The reason we're considering immunity-removal is that it allows you to tracking-disrupt or sensor-damp titans, rather than to make them hugely vulnerable to warp disruption. Even if we gave them a built-in strength of 50, it's still a pretty sizable numeric nerf as we go from needing infinity MWDing rifters to ~13 to tackle a titan, and the infinite-strength point from bubbles, dictors and hictor points still work as currently.

Also, most ships are special in some regard, and titans more than most. That's why ship selection is interesting.


One of the two problems that make titans too good against subcap fleets is that it is so easy for them to target, blap, and clear tackle. That won't change if 13 Rifters all fitted with double points can now tackle a single titan, since one of the other titans 30km away from those Rifters will just lock and blap them, or the Rifters will be smartbombed by some huge-radius titan smartbomb somewhere in the blob, or something. Titans will still be able to clear tackle absurdly easily with this change.

That also goes for a group of 20 titans who are trying to kill a fleet of ships applying electronic warfare effects like tracking disruption or sensor dampening. While in theory these effects -- disruption/damping -- will make it harder for any given titan to lock and blap subcaps, in practice the answer will always still be "bring more titans". We are talking about a game where multiple single alliances can field 50 titans, and any balancing effort needs to take this into account or it will be a farce.

Please, please, please understand that we live in a universe where every titan locks targets of opportunity nearly at will and does 90%+ of their maximum damage to anything cruiser-size or larger. To correct this state of affairs to one where "bring more titans" is not always the correct choice, you are going to need to implement severe nerfs. Electronic warfare isn't enough. The original nerfs, while strong on the targeting-time angle, probably still weren't enough.

Little elegant changes like "make titans vulnerable to damps/disruptors" don't change the fundamental mechanic of a 40-million-EHP ship which can deal 65-75% of dreadnought DPS to subcaps and field a DD weapon against capitals in the meantime.
Innominate
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#356 - 2012-03-29 11:38:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Innominate
CCP Greyscale wrote:

Not a a bonus to WCS, but rather a built-in thing like Blockade Runners have, so they're more vulnerable to tackling but can't be tackled by a single rifter, because that would be too big a balance swing for us to be comfortable with right now, particularly on top of the mooted already-huge EW-immunity removal. The reason we're considering immunity-removal is that it allows you to tracking-disrupt or sensor-damp titans, rather than to make them hugely vulnerable to warp disruption. Even if we gave them a built-in strength of 50, it's still a pretty sizable numeric nerf as we go from needing infinity MWDing rifters to ~13 to tackle a titan, and the infinite-strength point from bubbles, dictors and hictor points still work as currently.

Also, most ships are special in some regard, and titans more than most. That's why ship selection is interesting.


That is exactly what a bonus to wcs is. Just like what the deep space transports have(not blockade runners).

The ewar immunity removal is ONLY a big deal because of the vulnerability to targeted warp disruption. With +50 wcs, the ewar immunity removal amounts to a MASSIVE boost to titan blobs. Sure a couple can be tracking disrupted, maybe jammed, but it leaves the vast majority able to blap away while receiving remote sensor boosters and tracking links. Making titans vulnerable to warp disruption is what matters, it means that using titans requires control of the field. With ewar vulnerable titans, you can't just clear dictors and warp out as your leisure.

I'm a bit confused how you get 13 rifters to warp disrupt for 51 points. Are you assuming rifters with 2x warp scramblers? Which would all be dead in a few seconds because of the smartbombs? Back in reality, a +50 point titan takes 26 ships to tackle assuming specialized fits, and 51 assuming realistic fits. In realistic fleets this number of points is difficult to have in a 250 man fleet, let alone get on one target with 30 more blapping away.

If a reasonable(max of 5ish) built in warp strength is untenable, so is removing the ewar immunity.

Please stop thinking of this in terms of one titan vs a small gang of subcaps, and start thinking of this in terms of what happens when you have 30 titans with supercarrier support.
Joss56
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#357 - 2012-03-29 11:42:21 UTC
Get rid of off grid boosts.

Reinforce command ships presence and survivability by adding extra bonus between and from command ships only so they are extreme hard targets to kill and that you will not primary easily, plus will avoid solo/small gang powmobiles and a due reward to so much training dedication.

Make titans the ultimate Command ship, incapable to scratch a MWD'n straight line Battleship paint, only DD.
Make it impossible to target small targets under capital size and give it huge boosts to high slots for remote reps.
Making Titans, supers capitals in general fragile to sub cap ships.

Think about that titan trying to hit a MWD'n BS like you can obviously imagine a BS hit a frigate orbiting his large guns: impossible to hit/kill

When this day comes, capital fights will finally get interesting and the proliferation of those will stop to profit of a much larger interesting game play that is destroying cheaper ships for the fun of playing together and burn ships.
Castelo Selva
Forcas armadas
Brave Collective
#358 - 2012-03-29 11:54:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Castelo Selva
Oh Dear God, please guide CCP Greyscale in the nave of safety for Eve Universe.

Please shine the mind of CSM Member to guide then in the holy mission to make Greyscale understand that that are not other solution beside make titan a huge logistical ship with a big anti-capital cannon. That solve all the problems titan create now.

Do not be afraid of the ragequit drama.
CCP Greyscale
C C P
C C P Alliance
#359 - 2012-03-29 12:15:31 UTC  |  Edited by: CCP Greyscale
Also, further clarification:

This EW-immunity stuff is something we're *exploring*. This discussion is part of that exploration.

The specific benefits I'm hoping it might yield at this time aren't really to do with warp scrambling, they're to do specifically with tracking disruption. You can get four -62% TDs on an Arbitrator, each of which cancels out four Shadow Serpentis tracking computers. Even if you assign 2x TDs to each titan, this ought to let you significantly mitigate a 30-titan blapfleet with 15 T1 cruiser hulls, which is pretty decent scaling IMO.
WolfLeader316
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#360 - 2012-03-29 12:37:20 UTC
Like Stockton setting up Malone