These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Previous Topic Next Topic
Raivi
State War Academy
Caldari State
#401 - 2012-03-29 22:36:40 UTC
Imagine if supercap ewar immunity was removed, flying this:

[Flycatcher, TD]
Nanofiber Internal Structure II

Limited 1MN MicroWarpdrive I
Medium Shield Extender II
Balmer Series Tracking Disruptor I, Tracking Speed Disruption
Balmer Series Tracking Disruptor I, Tracking Speed Disruption
[empty med slot]

Interdiction Sphere Launcher I, Warp Disrupt Probe
Interdiction Sphere Launcher I, Warp Disrupt Probe
[empty high slot]
[empty high slot]
[empty high slot]
[empty high slot]
[empty high slot]
[empty high slot]

Small Core Defence Field Extender I
Small Core Defence Field Extender I

Has 3x the scan res of a triple sensor boosted Avatar, so relock any titans that yellow box you and profit. :lol:
Jiska Ensa
Estrale Frontiers
#402 - 2012-03-29 23:27:53 UTC
The spooling thing is nice but there are issues that need to be considered. Ie: Can a ship redock during the spool up if it gets tackled? If not, that's a slightly major nerf to jump freighters and rorquals and any other capital that can not defend itself.

Being able to use ECM/TD/SD against supercapitals would be great, as long as it has to be a group effort. Example, maybe 50+ ships in order to tackle one, 10 or 20 recons to jam/dampen/TD to the same level a single one would work against a subcapital.
Lynx Sawpaw
Hole Divers
Wardec Mechanics
#403 - 2012-03-30 03:27:23 UTC
FOOTAGE OF CCP TESTING XL TURRET TRACKING....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C3x0wFJBqnM
Andy Landen
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#404 - 2012-03-30 04:15:56 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:
Hi again everyone,

... we're not happy with any of the other possible changes we'd previously considered.


Please post additional constructive input in this thread!

Thanks,
-Greyscale


Has anyone seriously put cap neuts on the table? If carriers are to have any kind of counter to a titan, that would probably be it.

"We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them." Albert Einstein 
CCP Spitfire
C C P
C C P Alliance
#405 - 2012-03-30 05:08:33 UTC
Trolling posts removed.

CCP Spitfire | Marketing & Sales Team @ccp_spitfire
ilammy
Amarr Empire
#406 - 2012-03-30 05:53:37 UTC
Andy Landen wrote:
Has anyone seriously put cap neuts on the table? If carriers are to have any kind of counter to a titan, that would probably be it.
Primarily they would be counter to carriers themselves. You could ****ing forget about such thing as triage/siege in capfight if there were capital neuts. Or you should introduce an Ultra Heavy Capacitor Booster with Cap Boosters 9000, but they themselves ruin some things: cap boost & jump out; boosting triage carriers' resist to neuts if there are no capital neuts and so on.
Reilly Duvolle
Hydra Squadron
#407 - 2012-03-30 06:19:57 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:

Shin Dari wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:
Fair enough, shelving that idea for now
Dear CCP Grayscale, could you please comment on the idea of removing XL weapons and compensating for this with a cycle boosted doomsday weapon.


Would require us to do an upgrade script to remove all the suddenly-illegal weapons on patch day, which introduces too much overhead for it to be a viable option for this release.


Then drop the script (at least for now). Declare XL weapons on Titans to be an exploit after patch-day and get the players to remove them themselves. GMs sort out non-compliance cases. Its not like Titan pilots are your typical casual player likely to miss something like this anyway so I suspect the GMs wont have too many cases to handle.
CCP Greyscale
C C P
C C P Alliance
#408 - 2012-03-30 09:49:09 UTC  |  Edited by: CCP Greyscale
gfldex wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:
(My current favored implementation of a spool-up timer is just to tie spool length to jump distance, so if you want a fast hot-drop you have to base your caps nearby, which in turn makes it at least reasonably possible in principle to scout them. It's not a quick enough change to get it into Escalation, though.)


Is that the working title or do you have to kill us now?

An a different note, will jumping be cancel able while spooling up?


It's ok, you're safe: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NEJbwZCgNgU#t=26m40s

There's no "spool-up design" so I can't tell you. I'd hope if we do do it, it won't be dumb.

Savaage wrote:
@ CCP Greyscale

i don't know if its been mentioned already but one thing that should be looked at is bumping of titans. but from whats been posted at lest for this release titans will still have guns and tracking. Even in a anti cap role when 2 or more titans login/ cyno in near one another even if they are a few km away on there range finders they have a strong tendency to bump at ridiculously high speeds. When this happens even a titan shooting another titan has a high tendency to miss. with all the changes coming at titans it would be nice if 1/2 the titans in the fleet didnt go flying 300-400km away.


Yeah, that's something we know we need to look at at some point, and it goes for mass cap jumps too.

I'm Down wrote:

Mate, this does not work. You can't fix the problem with a tweak to a broken system, you need to fix the system. The reason we can find ways to exploit the system is because it's not built correctly. I can already come up with a way to abuse this system simply because it's not addressing the issue at hand, which is range affecting tracking.

I'd love to have a live chat with you sometime because discussing this on the forums in not very effective. But needless to say, buffing DD and / or trying to work the game within the current tracking mechanics are both horrible ideas for numerous reasons. You just need to grit your teeth and actually fix the core problem.

Also let me point you to this very old post now that was aimed at the first round of titan changes and balance, got huge positive player feedback including the CSM chair, and actually addresses the problem of stacking supers on grid to counter the one natural counter... dreads.

http://community.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1014819

Although, I would make sure that the cap requirement is above 40% to prevent jump in and DD instantly attempts.
I would also make sure that siege dreads got a reduction in effects, but unsieged dreads were vulnerable.

Makes the DD near impossible to stack, penalizes huge super numbers to support a titan who chooses to DD, and acutally makes the titan more of a supportive role in fights.

And it actually ushers in the age of new tech 3 modules and ships.


Ok, hit me with the abuse cases then Smile We don't have time to "fix the system" right now, but we want to tone titans down ASAP. If tweaks can hold us over for a while, I'll take tweaks.

I'm also still not totally clear on why you think we need to add a new "reduced to-hit chance at range" mechanic rather than just revising how falloff works, given that it already does reduce your to-hit chance at range.

I'm Down wrote:
Raivi, I get that, and he needs to adhear to his own logic in the original post of start small and work out rather than throw out 15 hair brained ideas that are bad, but serve as a temp fix.

If he's going to nerf tracking and lock amount... stick with that for now and patch in more later. Don't focus on 15 horrible small fixes all together simply because each one is small and easy to do in the now.


I'm not really looking for 15 small fixes together, I just want to thrash through *all* the potentially viable small fixes now so we can pick one or two that actually work, rather than either just going with the first thing we think of or throwing the whole thing out in disgust. It might be that the reduced-damage thing means we can roll back the locking and tracking fixes completely and just do that instead.
CCP Greyscale
C C P
C C P Alliance
#409 - 2012-03-30 09:50:59 UTC  |  Edited by: CCP Greyscale
Andy Landen wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:
Hi again everyone,

... we're not happy with any of the other possible changes we'd previously considered.


Please post additional constructive input in this thread!

Thanks,
-Greyscale


Has anyone seriously put cap neuts on the table? If carriers are to have any kind of counter to a titan, that would probably be it.


Not yet, no, but as the other dude said, they're probably more trouble than they're worth as they'd be hugely effective against caps and BS. If we wanted to go down the "titans are vulnerable because of cap use" road it'd probably be better to look at reducing titans' absolute capacitor capacity.

Reilly Duvolle wrote:

Then drop the script (at least for now). Declare XL weapons on Titans to be an exploit after patch-day and get the players to remove them themselves. GMs sort out non-compliance cases. Its not like Titan pilots are your typical casual player likely to miss something like this anyway so I suspect the GMs wont have too many cases to handle.


That's an incredibly hacky way of doing it and not really a precedent we want to be setting.
I'm Down
Macabre Votum
Northern Coalition.
#410 - 2012-03-30 10:13:58 UTC  |  Edited by: I'm Down
CCP Greyscale wrote:

I'm Down wrote:

Mate, this does not work. You can't fix the problem with a tweak to a broken system, you need to fix the system. The reason we can find ways to exploit the system is because it's not built correctly. I can already come up with a way to abuse this system simply because it's not addressing the issue at hand, which is range affecting tracking.

I'd love to have a live chat with you sometime because discussing this on the forums in not very effective. But needless to say, buffing DD and / or trying to work the game within the current tracking mechanics are both horrible ideas for numerous reasons. You just need to grit your teeth and actually fix the core problem.

Also let me point you to this very old post now that was aimed at the first round of titan changes and balance, got huge positive player feedback including the CSM chair, and actually addresses the problem of stacking supers on grid to counter the one natural counter... dreads.

http://community.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1014819

Although, I would make sure that the cap requirement is above 40% to prevent jump in and DD instantly attempts.
I would also make sure that siege dreads got a reduction in effects, but unsieged dreads were vulnerable.

Makes the DD near impossible to stack, penalizes huge super numbers to support a titan who chooses to DD, and acutally makes the titan more of a supportive role in fights.

And it actually ushers in the age of new tech 3 modules and ships.


Ok, hit me with the abuse cases then Smile We don't have time to "fix the system" right now, but we want to tone titans down ASAP. If tweaks can hold us over for a while, I'll take tweaks.


The issue with tweaking falloff is that you don't adress the tracking. If I can find the link later, I'll post it, but about 2 years ago in an IT alliance vs MM/NC fight, Sala Cameron got somewhere near 110 kill mails and almost all of them were singular damage by his titan. He wasn't even using close range weapons... He was using a Ragna with Artilleries.

ALL he used was tracking computers and damage mods in the fight. No painters, no webs. He understood that the tracking formula as it is now puts so little emphasis on sig of a ship compared to it's transversal velocity, that he simply waited til their orbit alignment dropped their trans. velocity down to nearly 0. In eve combat, this happens all the time unless you have 1 fixed object to orbit that is the only object you are being shot by.

Scale titan fights up to 20 + and you will always have at least half the titans that can find this magic moment to blap with. When you have tons of targets to chose from of all ranges of skill, you're easily going to be able to reduce an enemy's fleet power quickly. Toss in web effects, and you make their margin of error drastically smaller.

The issue is that at range, the tracking drastically increases and the sig never changes. Greater difference in gun sig to ship sig at range means a greately reduced need to for the defending pilot to have a perfect orbital path and a much much smaller window for those titan pilots to find that hole where traversal velocity drops close enough to 0 where it overwhelms the sig.

So if you affect the gun sig as range increases and then reduce titan tracking.... both in cooperation actually make titans useless against support under most circumstances.


This is the same reason why pulse ships are so popular in game today. If you take away drakes and tengus, you'll probably see Amarr as one of the primary fleet concepts in 0.0. This is due to their high tracking + high range giving them some silly amount of hit potential on any ship class in game because of range and range alone.

As for the DD stacking with multiple mods, you can look around page 18 of this thread for that explanation.
CCP Greyscale
C C P
C C P Alliance
#411 - 2012-03-30 10:33:53 UTC
I'm Down wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:

I'm Down wrote:

Mate, this does not work. You can't fix the problem with a tweak to a broken system, you need to fix the system. The reason we can find ways to exploit the system is because it's not built correctly. I can already come up with a way to abuse this system simply because it's not addressing the issue at hand, which is range affecting tracking.

I'd love to have a live chat with you sometime because discussing this on the forums in not very effective. But needless to say, buffing DD and / or trying to work the game within the current tracking mechanics are both horrible ideas for numerous reasons. You just need to grit your teeth and actually fix the core problem.

Also let me point you to this very old post now that was aimed at the first round of titan changes and balance, got huge positive player feedback including the CSM chair, and actually addresses the problem of stacking supers on grid to counter the one natural counter... dreads.

http://community.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1014819

Although, I would make sure that the cap requirement is above 40% to prevent jump in and DD instantly attempts.
I would also make sure that siege dreads got a reduction in effects, but unsieged dreads were vulnerable.

Makes the DD near impossible to stack, penalizes huge super numbers to support a titan who chooses to DD, and acutally makes the titan more of a supportive role in fights.

And it actually ushers in the age of new tech 3 modules and ships.


Ok, hit me with the abuse cases then Smile We don't have time to "fix the system" right now, but we want to tone titans down ASAP. If tweaks can hold us over for a while, I'll take tweaks.


The issue with tweaking falloff is that you don't adress the tracking. If I can find the link later, I'll post it, but about 2 years ago in an IT alliance vs MM/NC fight, Sala Cameron got somewhere near 110 kill mails and almost all of them were singular damage by his titan. He wasn't even using close range weapons... He was using a Ragna with Artilleries.

ALL he used was tracking computers and damage mods in the fight. No painters, no webs. He understood that the tracking formula as it is now puts so little emphasis on sig of a ship compared to it's transversal velocity, that he simply waited til their orbit alignment dropped their trans. velocity down to nearly 0. In eve combat, this happens all the time unless you have 1 fixed object to orbit that is the only object you are being shot by.

Scale titan fights up to 20 + and you will always have at least half the titans that can find this magic moment to blap with. When you have tons of targets to chose from of all ranges of skill, you're easily going to be able to reduce an enemy's fleet power quickly. Toss in web effects, and you make their margin of error drastically smaller.

The issue is that at range, the tracking drastically increases and the sig never changes. Greater difference in gun sig to ship sig at range means a greately reduced need to for the defending pilot to have a perfect orbital path and a much much smaller window for those titan pilots to find that hole where traversal velocity drops close enough to 0 where it overwhelms the sig.

So if you affect the gun sig as range increases and then reduce titan tracking.... both in cooperation actually make titans useless against support under most circumstances.


This is the same reason why pulse ships are so popular in game today. If you take away drakes and tengus, you'll probably see Amarr as one of the primary fleet concepts in 0.0. This is due to their high tracking + high range giving them some silly amount of hit potential on any ship class in game because of range and range alone.

As for the DD stacking with multiple mods, you can look around page 18 of this thread for that explanation.


I see what you're getting at, I think. Can this not be mitigated by just adjusting the falloff formula*, alongside potentially adjusting the general balance between optimal and falloff?

*As in, the attribute "falloff" that currently exists on turrets etc, not sig-based damage reductions
Bubanni
Corus Aerospace
#412 - 2012-03-30 10:34:24 UTC
:D I have an idea for fixing capital the problem with titan tracking... increase the signature resolution of capital turrets...
or as you talked about yourself, change turret mechanics so signature of target vs signature resolution of turrets have an impact on maximum damage you can recieve... eventhough that will require some work, it will also make things even more interresting in the rest of eve... frigates being even stronger vs battlecruisers and battleships because damage will be lower even when doing good hits...

Supercap nerf - change ewar immunity https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=194759 Module activation delay! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1180934
CynoNet Two
GSF Logistics and Posting Reserves
Goonswarm Federation
#413 - 2012-03-30 10:37:14 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:
I see what you're getting at, I think. Can this not be mitigated by just adjusting the falloff formula*, alongside potentially adjusting the general balance between optimal and falloff?

*As in, the attribute "falloff" that currently exists on turrets etc, not sig-based damage reductions

How would this affect anything within optimal range? Blasters and Pulses would still be capable of alpha'ing anything within 70km with ease before their falloff even kicks in.
Bubanni
Corus Aerospace
#414 - 2012-03-30 10:43:14 UTC
Quote:
not sig-based damage reductions


Sig-based damage reduction really is the best solution you could give... the best balance... it would also improve the rest of eve... balanceing the way frigs are currently being instantly killed by battlecruisers, or within seconds (unless they have good enough transversal or distance) signature of medium guns is about 200+m so as long as a frig is not microwarping, the damage would be reduced... I really think it's something thats worth putting a team on.... :) (of cause not something that will make it impossible for cruiser weapons to kill frigates, just make it take a little longer)

Supercap nerf - change ewar immunity https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=194759 Module activation delay! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1180934
CCP Greyscale
C C P
C C P Alliance
#415 - 2012-03-30 10:44:46 UTC
CynoNet Two wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:
I see what you're getting at, I think. Can this not be mitigated by just adjusting the falloff formula*, alongside potentially adjusting the general balance between optimal and falloff?

*As in, the attribute "falloff" that currently exists on turrets etc, not sig-based damage reductions

How would this affect anything within optimal range? Blasters and Pulses would still be capable of alpha'ing anything within 70km with ease before their falloff even kicks in.


Hence the bit about potentially adjusting the current balance between optimal and falloff. We already have a mechanic to make you hit less at long range; if that's not working, I'd prefer to fix that mechanic rather than introduce another one alongside it. If we don't like that you can do 70k optimal on pulses, we have the technology to just reduce that number to a range that we do like, and kick the falloff up to compensate. If we don't like the way damage drops off as a result, we can adjust the falloff formula to do whatever we want it to do Smile
Lin Fatale
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#416 - 2012-03-30 11:38:24 UTC
Greyscale if I understand you right.

You dont even think about to nerf supers as a whole.
You just want to nerf them a bit that they cannt annihilate subcaps , which will be very difficult with your current approach

And in your opinion, for now they shoul stay as they are, a moving pos with no real drawbacks.
Massive ehp, mobile and not killable except you bring moar. Which is only posible for the 2-3 largest alliances.
Everyone else should just stay docked with their caps.

I doubt that your vision of 200 hacs and 50 arbitrators will kill a superfleet will work

You bosted dreads, did you achieve anything with that?

After Kazanir post it should be very clear that there is more wrong with supers than just the posibity to kill subcaps.
Andy Landen
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#417 - 2012-03-30 11:55:39 UTC  |  Edited by: Andy Landen
ilammy wrote:
Andy Landen wrote:
Has anyone seriously put cap neuts on the table? If carriers are to have any kind of counter to a titan, that would probably be it.
Primarily they would be counter to carriers themselves. You could ****ing forget about such thing as triage/siege in capfight if there were capital neuts. Or you should introduce an Ultra Heavy Capacitor Booster with Cap Boosters 9000, but they themselves ruin some things: cap boost & jump out; boosting triage carriers' resist to neuts if there are no capital neuts and so on.


The beauty of Eve is that there is no "I win" button (until the Titan and Supercap, thanks to eWar immunity, insane EHP, and insane alpha/dps). Eve has always been about every ship/fit having a counter, no matter how large, and neither the Titan nor the SC should be any different. The idea of Titans/SCs being immune to eWar is ridiculous enough, but another poster had to go ahead and propose an infinite cap as well for a Titan (a couple of posts up) .. I mean really .. a ship designed to not have a counter except through raw dps and bumps?

I propose that carriers get bonuses to cap transfers and cap neuts are put onto the field. Then, if anyone says the cap neut is OP, they are left answering the question of how the other classes of neuts aren't OP .. they aren't. Somehow, subcaps have survived these many years with medium and large neuts, plus ships with bonuses to them. I have a feeling that caps will be fine with cap neuts. To be honest, eWar immunity has got to go. It totally undermines the Eve culture and ship fitting philosophy of "find that counter" and there is no reason that they either need or should be eWar immune. If anything, just buff their sensor strength to 100, and maybe give them a +2 to warp core strength like the bustard if you must (but why?).

Anyhow, if carrier's got a bonus to cap transfers, I would not be worried about cap neuts against carriers. The DD requires an effective counter, and the cap neut could be the answer. Maybe give the Amarr SC a bonus to cap neuts to be the capital version of the curse. The caldari SC could have bonuses to remote ECM burst or to a capital ECM module to follow the caldari ECM philosophy (Rook, etc). and so on with the other SCs. And seriously, the DD is just unprecedented and game breaking, and should seriously be re-thought, though cap neut will help until the DD is fixed. No other ship has anything like it, no Eve philosophy alludes to it, and by one shotting carriers/dreads, there is no real counter besides more of the same (Titans/SCs). I would just say, boost DD against structures only, and leave it ineffective against other ships, to make Titans true alliance sov warfare machines as they were initially intended. Then they would have real and intuitive purposes. While any change is game changing, these changes would follow the traditional Eve mechanics and allow people to smoothly extend their subcap strategies to caps.

"We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them." Albert Einstein 
Gypsio III
Questionable Ethics.
Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
#418 - 2012-03-30 12:11:44 UTC
Of all the ideas here, I think only two fall into both categories of "would have a meaningful effect" and "would be simple to introduce". Those are removing the ewar immunity (coordination problems notwithstanding), and removing Titans' turrets altogether (with some level of additional DDD power, or maybe giving them all missiles lol).

At the moment, if you want a quick fix before doing the proper balancing later, it looks like you'll have to choose one of those.
CynoNet Two
GSF Logistics and Posting Reserves
Goonswarm Federation
#419 - 2012-03-30 12:41:41 UTC  |  Edited by: CynoNet Two
CCP Greyscale wrote:
CynoNet Two wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:
I see what you're getting at, I think. Can this not be mitigated by just adjusting the falloff formula*, alongside potentially adjusting the general balance between optimal and falloff?

*As in, the attribute "falloff" that currently exists on turrets etc, not sig-based damage reductions

How would this affect anything within optimal range? Blasters and Pulses would still be capable of alpha'ing anything within 70km with ease before their falloff even kicks in.


Hence the bit about potentially adjusting the current balance between optimal and falloff. We already have a mechanic to make you hit less at long range; if that's not working, I'd prefer to fix that mechanic rather than introduce another one alongside it. If we don't like that you can do 70k optimal on pulses, we have the technology to just reduce that number to a range that we do like, and kick the falloff up to compensate. If we don't like the way damage drops off as a result, we can adjust the falloff formula to do whatever we want it to do Smile


You told me at the weekend you didn't want to put any damage cap on turrets because it would 'make them too much like missiles', and now you're talking about turning all XL turrets into projectiles - relying on falloff for damage.

Can we go back and revisit dropping ewar immunity? While not perfect, EW is the logical solution to this issue provided supercaps don't recieve too high a bonus to warp core strength. The issue was not so much that coordinating EW is too hard, but that coordinating EW alongside coordinating 50+ points of tackle was impossible.
With a warp core strength in the region of 5-10 it becomes viable to need fewer ships holding down titans while more ships focus on EW. It also means that temporary loss of EW does not immediately compromise the tackle.

Remove EW immunity,
Set max targets to 3,
Keep the -50% tracking change.
ilammy
Amarr Empire
#420 - 2012-03-30 12:53:01 UTC
Andy Landen wrote:
...
The difference between capitals and subcapitals capwise is that subcaps have adequate capboosters to counter neuts. Capitals don't, they rely purely on their recharge rate to come back to fight after being neuted. First of all I consider not supercaps or titans but dreads and carriers. Titans and supercaps don't urge for the cap to do their job: if they need it (for DD or jumping) they can get it via friendly cap transfers at any time. But dreads and carriers really do need cap for surviving and fulfilling their duties; but they can be neuted in siege/triage, but can't be filled up with cap by transfers while they're in the middle of the cycle.

And consider carriers neuting the battleships to zero in one cycle with one neut (no that 'capital neuts neut only capitals' please). This would be the same thing as it is now with the turrets: battleships can kill frigates with their L guns in seconds and neut them to zero with one cycle of their heavy neut; titans can kill battleships with their XL guns in seconds. Aren't this situations similar? And is there any whine about the latter?

Nevertheless, I agree that instakilling capitals with one freaking DD is bad. So you drop a triage carrier to help your friends? Then I'll drop a single titan and kill you in 10 seconds without a single phantom chance to survive. Gloriuos PVP.
But there should be a solution which does not need such dubious thing as capital sized neuts/boosters. For example some kind of signature for the DD: you will need about 20 titans to one-shot a supercapital or at least about 5 or 10 to do the same with the regular capital.