These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Corteztk
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#701 - 2012-04-10 14:24:08 UTC
I'm not one to post on these forums much but for this I will and I hope Greyscale reads this. I have been playing this game for a good while now and I hope to enjoy it and still play it for some time to come. Sadly, a proposal has been put forward though that would end much of my enjoyment in eve. Not being able to refit in combat would be a massive nerf to carriers and dreads. Wormhole fight would become boring to say the least. Your contention that the game was never intended to be played like this is ridiculous. What you are actually saying in reality is that you never meant to make a game that we love to play. It's the unintended parts of EVE that us as players both love and hate.

Now, I'm not saying that I will quit this game in protest of this decision. That would be an idle threat because as long as I enjoy this game I am going to continue playing it. What I am going to say is that not allowing ships to refit in combat would take away one of the many things I love about this game and take me one step closer to not playing this game anymore. Please reconsider, and in fact look at expanding the refitting options available. It's this type of action in combat that separates F1 monkeys from truly talented PVPers. Yes titans need a nerf due to their absolute all powerfulness but that doesn't need to be a nerf to every capital in the game. Not to mention taking away a gameplay style that is what makes EVE different from every other crappy MMO.

Please reconsider your misguided idea as I want to keep playing this game for the long term.

Cortez the killer
Kaildoth
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#702 - 2012-04-10 14:48:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Kaildoth
I agree with CCP Greyscale concerning the in-flight refits. Deciding prior of combat of how you will fit your ship is (or should be) a fundamental part of every pilot's strategy.
People that say that this will ruin EVE should keep in-mind that this option didn't even exist a couple of years ago, when caps were not in game. That didn't stop EVE from growing though... Some parts of EVE are what made EVE what it is today. And they should remain like that forever.
I'm glad CCP Greyscale sees it the same way, and i hope people here won't change his mind.
CCP Greyscale
C C P
C C P Alliance
#703 - 2012-04-10 15:06:38 UTC
Hi again!

Sorry for the delay, I got ambushed by a five-day weekend and decided to actually take a break Smile


Before doing a whole bunch of specific replies, I want to make one general comment about "the sandbox".

Firstly, there's two general CCP principles that are being regularly rolled into the definition of "the sandbox". The first is what we actually refer to as "the sandbox" internally, namely the fact that we prefer to give players tools and let them come up with their own objectives, rather than giving them content and telling them what the win conditions are. The second is the "laissez-faire" approach to what is and isn't acceptable in game, namely that (by and large) if the mechanics allow it and it's not a clear exploit, it's allowed.

Neither of these principles excuse us for implementing gameplay that is bad. If the tools we offer push players in directions that result in bad gameplay for lots of players, those tools are badly-designed and need to be improved. This has almost nothing to do with "the sandbox", and usually very little to do with "laissez-faire". We like emergence, but emergence does not allow you to abdicate responsibility for your game being rubbish, and there is no such thing as a "usage-neutral" feature.

When we see something happening in the game that we feel is "bad for the game", we'll allow players to keep using it while it exists (so long as it's not a clear exploit), but we'll also do what we can to make that thing stop happening. Making your game be emergent and sandboxy and laissez-faire isn't helpful when the game itself is bad.



Separate topic:

We're currently leaning towards not making any general changes to refitting in space. I'm hopeful that we'll be able to make enough changes to titans that blapping goes away anyway and this issue drops off our short-term radar, and if this isn't the case we're more likely to do a targeted adjustment to supercaps (possibly letting them keep their SMA but removing the fititng service). I'm still not yet happy with explicitly supporting this sort of thing for cap/subcap stuff (because it's the first step into a potentially very deep rabbit hole and I don't want to set that precedent right now), but the arguments in this thread have been good enough that I'm preferring to deliberately avoid touching the issue right now.


Also, these replies might be out-of-order, because I opened a few other tabs while doing this so my tab ordering is a bit screwed up.

5mok1ng gun wrote:

The pre-fight decisions that are undertaken when utilising the SMAs in combat are more intricate ( do I have X,Y,Z yes but hold on F could be useful ) Too many options and you reduce what else you can do during combat ( now I am down XXXX m3 so I now can not carry as much XXXXXXXX as I think I will need ) one option always impacts another.



I must say that the devs never amaze me anymore hiding such a game change like the proposed Ships Ship Maintenance Array change in whatever stage of conception it’s in within a thread about “ Titan changes – update “ since it impacts ALL capital ships.


This is a good argument.

Also, I'm having this discussion in this thread partly because it is spawned from the same topic, and partly because this is the most productive feedback thread I've been involved in in a *long* time, and the more interesting things we can go over here, the better Smile


I'm Down wrote:
Basically the rule of thumb with supers is that titans are about 10x the combat value of every Mothership, Motherships are about 40x the value of any dread. That's of course assuming it's an actual fight and not 40 dreads vs 1 random mothership.

Primary issue with titans is that they have no natural counter. FIRST AND FOREMOST. The one "natural counter"... Dreads, got screwed long ago when supers became anti capital platforms. Dreads fall quickly to Doomsdays, the 1 shot wonders, which makes it nearly impossible to fight large titan numbers. Dreads die in under 30 seconds to any lightly coordinate mothership group.... IE choose a random target near the top of the list and see how many fighters end up on it.

BS and below suffer only because the tracking to range balance is ****** up.

But who's honestly going to be so liberal with titans if all the sudden, dreads are a threat again. I fought this battle intensely when the first changes to supers were made with fighter bombers and DD 1 shot bull, and it flew under the radar, but lets face facts, you removed the role of normal caps when supers became the blap mobile.

So ask yourself this honest question Greyscale. Is the problem really the guns on titans, or the fitting array, or the amount of target locks, or is it that you have 2 ship classes that counters any ship in game capable of effectively killing it. Because when you realize that this is the true problem, you'll see that Titans and SC will always spawn in mass on a grid, in higher numbers simply because remote repair + the encouragement of insane resist due to cost of ship vs cost of gear factors and the overall unkillability of them encourage this.

Even if you implemented lower damage though some crap sig/balance damage scale rather than adjusting the tracking formula, there's a natural counter to your solution which is, bring more titans and start focusing fire. Eventually, the damage will still blap, and the ship is still near impossible to kill. And even when you nerf titans into oblivion, we're already working on a solution which involves BS vs 3600 DPS fighter bombers once we "adjust" their sig and speed for them... and yes, we've tested it on SiSi.

Fix the core problems, quit looking for the easy solution that avoids the core problems.


This is also a really good post, thanks. I don't think we can address the larger problem here right now, but it's now on my radar.
CCP Greyscale
C C P
C C P Alliance
#704 - 2012-04-10 15:13:17 UTC  |  Edited by: CCP Spitfire
Sigras wrote:
Demon Azrakel wrote:
I am not sure you understand grouping. All calculations are done independently, some shots miss, some hit. What you get printed out is the total and an average quality of hit. If you get two excellent hits and one miss (think a dread with three guns here), the game will tell you "well aimed" or something. And yet one gun missed. All that grouping guns does is is make it so you hit f1 instead of f1-f6. The calculations do not care, it just prints out a total damage and average hit quality.

im pretty sure you're wrong about that; gun grouping was put into the game as a help to lag. As quoted from

Original Dev Blog wrote:
As a side effect, we want to emphasize that using this feature will have a beneficial effect on overall latency since calculations are counted from one combined group and not eight individual modules in an extreme scenario; as such we highly recommend its use for fleet battles. Below is a comparison between the individual and grouped mode.


Am I mistaken about this?


The calculations discussed there are the damage-application calculations (ie, if he has X hitpoints and I do Y damage, how many hitpoints does he have left?); we still calculate hits and damage amounts separately for each turrets, they're just combined before the application step.

Ganthrithor wrote:
Greyscale:

What about removing DDs, reducing Titans bonus to XL weapons to a flat 125 percent (and leaving XLs unchanged), and adding a new class of turrets specifically for Titans that allow them to do similar DPS to their current XL setups but with 2-4x the gun signature size. Then go through the DB and douple/quadruple the size of capship sig radii as appropriate to match.


Interesting but out of scope due to having to remove modules from ships, unfortunately.

MisterAl tt1 wrote:
2. XL sig scaling. Has CCP once again forgotten, that there are places like wormholes? Or has CCP forgotten there are other ships using XL turrets, but titans? I agree, that after Dreads buff they are a little overpowered in WH engagements, since they can easily kill even T3 ships, if properly prepared. However, the suggested change can greatly impact even PVE aspect too - dreads are commonly used to shoot Sleeper BS. Drastically limiting Dreds use for PVE in wormholes can put some corporations between the choice of staying in WH with lower profits (and still living in high-risk environment where you have to use expensive ships), or go farming Incursions.

If going forward with XL scaling I would suggest, that for wormholes such side-changes are needed to keep dreads "alive":
1. Modified sig-radius used in calculation
2. Sleepless Guardian BS sig radius increased

And some option to still making dreads in WH able play their role in sub-capital engagements. Though limited.


Dreads being used for PvE is another of those "we're OK with it but we're not designing for it" scenarios. Unless making this change will fundamentally *break* W-space (not just disadvantage people, but make it literally unusable), we're not planning to start balancing dreadnaughts with PvE in mind just because someone's managed to make it work in a few specific scenarios. That road takes us to a place where we can't nerf titans because they're really good ratters.
CCP Greyscale
C C P
C C P Alliance
#705 - 2012-04-10 15:14:28 UTC
Grideris wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:
Mike deVoid wrote:

I've started a proposal thread on FHC that does just this: http://failheap-challenge.com/showthread.php?6245-The-Great-Tracking-Nerf-v0-1


If you want to discuss it here I'd recommend posting it here Smile


It's a pretty massive set of posts - I actually would in this instance recommend that you read it over there.


Thing is, I can read it over there, but I can't comment on it over there (for obvious and unalterable reasons), so it's not a hugely useful exercise.

Stonecold Steve wrote:

So lets state the following situation;

Titan with supercap buddy?
supercap uses ECM burst
target locks are lost,
Titan quickly refits some modules (maybe due to the extra keys a hightech keyboard gives)
*Live long and prosper?


Ugh. Yeah ok.
CCP Greyscale
C C P
C C P Alliance
#706 - 2012-04-10 15:20:41 UTC
SuperSpy00bob wrote:
I'm a little dubious to support a quick fix to titans with a promised 'we will fix them properly soon(tm)'.

How about just committing to fixing them for real, in whatever time frame it takes, and ignoring any interim band-aid attempts?

I think it's fair to be weary of CCP leaving quick fix changes in far too long while promising to 'do it right' "later".

Also I think you should be cautious of any changes to XL turrets in general as any change there will greatly change Dreadnoughts, which I'm sure many people will agree don't need any more negative attention. What?


Because that means leaving them broken on TQ for the forseeable future while we cross our fingers and hope we get time to do a "proper fix" at some point, which is something we're trying to avoid right now.

Sigras wrote:
Is there a particular reason you decided to use raw unmodified signature radius to scale damage and not final signature radius?


Considering it because target painters allow you to reinflate things really quickly. Looking at the math further, though, I'm not totally convinced it's actually needed.

Bouh Revetoile wrote:
I found a quick and dirty fix for turret damages which do not turn them like missiles !


This sort of approach changes the damage formula for every ship in the game, which means we need to sanity-check balance on every ship in the game, and is thus not going to happen in the immediate future.

I'm Down wrote:
It would be better and more realistic for the game if damage wasn't simply artificlally scaled to size and provided rewards to pilots using accrued skill and FC accrued tactics rather than silly mechanics that defy logic. Pilots should be rewarded for good actions, not for obvious decisions where smaller < damage w/o thought.

Quote:
It's an abstraction which serves us for balancing purposes. Yes, it would be more "realistic" to tune the tracking formula further, but that's a) not something that's in scope here and b) not necessarily going to produce good *gameplay*. Realism is good because it makes it easier for players to make intuitive deductions about the system so they can make better decisions, but it's subservient to making the game *good*. This is also why we don't have Newtonian combat - it's *realistic*, but it also sucks for the kind of game we're making.


Problem with your statement is that simple damage scaling based on signature is removing almost any role the player has in the game. You're almost making it a requirement that players fly certain trump ships rather than leaving the decision up to the the base why one choice is better than another. My fear is that you usher in more of the age of: "Tech 3 is the best because it combines low sig, high tank, high range, high damage, and high speed" Rather than rewarding players who can take a BS and use it within good mechanics.

The game needs to reward players for decisions on both good ship choices and good skills, not just one or the other. The factors that decide a win need to be multifaceted and by saying signature trumps offense exclusive of skill, you are removing 99% of what makes this game unique.


This is a really strong argument. I'm now leaning away from using damage scaling as a general solution to this issue in future, and towards messing directly with the damage formula. That's not a commitment, but I buy the argument about too much RPS and not enough player skill.
Hitokiri Battoesai
THORN Syndicate
Northern Coalition.
#707 - 2012-04-10 15:22:58 UTC
I can not believe you are even considering removing the ability to refit in space if targeted! CCP Greyscale you and the rest of your crew working on the Titan nerf need to set back and really think about all the things you will be changing in the game if you make this change. I have to say this is officially the worst idea you guys could have come up with! It is going to nerf a lot of game play mechanics not just the Titan!
Raivi
State War Academy
Caldari State
#708 - 2012-04-10 15:50:39 UTC
This is indeed a good thread. Welcome back Greyscale, hope you had a good break.

I'm really glad you're reconsidering the refitting in space change. This whole dialogue has been pretty excellent so far imo.
I'm Down
Macabre Votum
Northern Coalition.
#709 - 2012-04-10 16:52:33 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:


Quote:
The game needs to reward players for decisions on both good ship choices and good skills, not just one or the other. The factors that decide a win need to be multifaceted and by saying signature trumps offense exclusive of skill, you are removing 99% of what makes this game unique.


This is a really strong argument. I'm now leaning away from using damage scaling as a general solution to this issue in future, and towards messing directly with the damage formula. That's not a commitment, but I buy the argument about too much RPS and not enough player skill.



I'm glad we finally got passed this point. Tengu's are already a dominant force in combat today simply because of the sig/defense/range/damage principles and I'd only see it becoming worse if titans got this change.

The real issue is one that affects all combat in game, the tracking getting better and the sig not adjusting for range. We need to focus on the actual problem so that other imbalanced ships like the Maelstrom blob, won't be the obvious I win. Make counters happen through good piloting and not just more numbers.

I'd personally go for a 10km range modifier increasing sig res by 100%. Meaning at 50km range, titan gun sig is 5000. This means ships will need a very low transversal speed to counter titans if their sig is below 500.... This reduces the window for titans to blap small ships unless they are incredibly dumb, but allows a highly skilled titan pilot to still find a random kill or two in fleet combat.
Jorge de Burgos
ordo catharsis
#710 - 2012-04-10 17:04:49 UTC
Refitting ships in mid-combat is one of those rare possibilities to beat a large group of players with a smaller one - do not take this away from us, please! Pretty please?
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
#711 - 2012-04-10 17:16:07 UTC
question can i use a signal amp on my titan? that way i can now target 5 ships instead of just 3?

i know its a waste of a low slot but if i am in range of a carrier i can easily switch it out for a tank mod if i am being primaried...

There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... CCP Goliath wrote:

Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.
Reilly Duvolle
Hydra Squadron
#712 - 2012-04-10 18:28:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Reilly Duvolle
Jorge de Burgos wrote:
Refitting ships in mid-combat is one of those rare possibilities to beat a large group of players with a smaller one - do not take this away from us, please! Pretty please?


I think you are kicking in open doors at this point mate:

CCP Greyscale wrote:
We're currently leaning towards not making any general changes to refitting in space.
Ganthrithor
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#713 - 2012-04-10 18:52:47 UTC
Greyscale,

<3

Thanks for reading all this.

Because we've gone through so many stages / revisions on the impending nerf, could you write up a quick summary of where your proposed changes are at as of this moment?
Ganthrithor
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#714 - 2012-04-11 01:31:21 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:

Ganthrithor wrote:
Greyscale:

What about removing DDs, reducing Titans bonus to XL weapons to a flat 125 percent (and leaving XLs unchanged), and adding a new class of turrets specifically for Titans that allow them to do similar DPS to their current XL setups but with 2-4x the gun signature size. Then go through the DB and douple/quadruple the size of capship sig radii as appropriate to match.


Interesting but out of scope due to having to remove modules from ships, unfortunately.



Just curious, would there be anyway to do this without having to run a "removes stuff from ships" script?

Perhaps removing the skill from the game, then setting up NPC buy orders for the DD mods? IIRC if you jump in a ship that has a module fit which you are not skilled to use it simply offlines, and you're free to unfit it from the ship yourself.
Andy Landen
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#715 - 2012-04-11 02:03:15 UTC
Brilliant post by Ganthrithor.

Ganthrithor wrote:
[Chuckling IRL about the idea of letting Titans mount 5, 1m HP DDs, then saying "supercarriers would counter Titans because they would be mostly immune to the DD effect."

If by "mostly immune," you mean, "1-3 supercarriers dying every shot," then yeah. Pretty much immune.

I don't think I'll ever understand where the whole "pro-doomsdays" crowd is coming from with their arguments. DDs are a massive alpha, totally zero-skill weapon mounted to ships that can then fit entirely for tank without sacrificing any offensive capability whatsoever. They're pretty much the antithesis of everything EVE claims to stand for: they require no fitting compromises to use, they do so much damage that they alpha most caps (yes, in practice you can fit dreads to tank a DD or two, but only because everyone flies buses and Avatars), the only constraint on their usage is "you must be in lock range," and it's been scientifically proven that they hate fun.

If I were CCP I would do pretty much the exact opposite thing: remove doomsdays entirely, vastly reduce Titans' damage bonus to XL weapons, and introduce a new type of turret that Titans could use to do massive damage to structures and caps at the cost of being able to track anything smaller in all but the most contrived situations.


Funny and right on the money.

If I may suggest an alternative to removing the DD entirely: Allow DD to ONLY be activated against a structure. Allow the Titan to push 2-3 times the dps of a Dread by using regular turrets/missiles scaled to its size. It still gets to be more anti-cap than a dread, AND gets a large sov bonus against structures. Combined that with Sigras' suggestions minus the 3rd point,
Sigras wrote:
I suggest the following:
1. Change the DD to 1,000,000 base damage
2. Change the DD cap usage, and isotope usage to 1/3 of normal
3. Remove all guns/missiles from the titans
4. Change the DD operation skill to "Allows the use of the Doomsday module. One extra module can be fitted per skill level."

"We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them." Albert Einstein 
MisterAl tt1
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#716 - 2012-04-11 02:40:51 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:

Dreads being used for PvE is another of those "we're OK with it but we're not designing for it" scenarios. Unless making this change will fundamentally *break* W-space (not just disadvantage people, but make it literally unusable), we're not planning to start balancing dreadnaughts with PvE in mind just because someone's managed to make it work in a few specific scenarios. That road takes us to a place where we can't nerf titans because they're really good ratters.


First of all: thank you for your time.

Let me remind, that capitals coming to high-class Sleeper sites spawn groups of very nasty BS, that are actually capable of killing capitals even with some support. Multiple capitals (up to 4) bring in multiple spawns that need some knowledge and skills to counter.

As such it looks like PVE use of capitals was actually taken into consideration when CCP created such mechanic.

Sure, the way sites and capital escalations are done now can be too easy, however, I do hope damage scaling would not come in exact proportion like 30% signature = 30% damage.
ilammy
Amarr Empire
#717 - 2012-04-11 04:09:20 UTC
MisterAl tt1 wrote:
As such it looks like PVE use of capitals was actually taken into consideration when CCP created such mechanic.
Yeah, but I think CCP guys were imaging PVE use of capitals vs sleepers as 'if you drop a capital onto sleepers, they counterdrop and kill it'.
Kadesh Priestess
Descendance.
GoonSwarm.
#718 - 2012-04-11 06:28:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Kadesh Priestess
CCP Greyscale wrote:
I'm Down wrote:
It would be better and more realistic for the game if damage wasn't simply artificlally scaled to size and provided rewards to pilots using accrued skill and FC accrued tactics rather than silly mechanics that defy logic. Pilots should be rewarded for good actions, not for obvious decisions where smaller < damage w/o thought.

Quote:
It's an abstraction which serves us for balancing purposes. Yes, it would be more "realistic" to tune the tracking formula further, but that's a) not something that's in scope here and b) not necessarily going to produce good *gameplay*. Realism is good because it makes it easier for players to make intuitive deductions about the system so they can make better decisions, but it's subservient to making the game *good*. This is also why we don't have Newtonian combat - it's *realistic*, but it also sucks for the kind of game we're making.


Problem with your statement is that simple damage scaling based on signature is removing almost any role the player has in the game. You're almost making it a requirement that players fly certain trump ships rather than leaving the decision up to the the base why one choice is better than another. My fear is that you usher in more of the age of: "Tech 3 is the best because it combines low sig, high tank, high range, high damage, and high speed" Rather than rewarding players who can take a BS and use it within good mechanics.

The game needs to reward players for decisions on both good ship choices and good skills, not just one or the other. The factors that decide a win need to be multifaceted and by saying signature trumps offense exclusive of skill, you are removing 99% of what makes this game unique.


This is a really strong argument. I'm now leaning away from using damage scaling as a general solution to this issue in future, and towards messing directly with the damage formula. That's not a commitment, but I buy the argument about too much RPS and not enough player skill.
I'd like to add that such principles should apply to both sides, offending and defending. You know, generally speaking you *can* evade tracking, but when you're webbed, pointed (both up to 100 km in modern conditions), target painted and under the focus of more-or-less scattered turret gang - you die no matter what. Probably use of such ewar also may be revisited to make it dependent on skill. Plus, use of missiles is bad according to this concept for offensive side. Would be fun to introduce longer missile acceleration/turn time and launch it with the same initial vector as ship's - like, if you want decent range, you have to care about it :)

Also remember that there always were attributes like resistances which do not rely on skill. The bigger your ship gets, the slower it is, the higher its ehp and resists, the less it relies on your actions (it still relies on reaction of your logi, yes, but to a limited extent - compare it with responsibility inty's decisions, where any wrong one results in its wreck; and these are still actions of your logi, not yours). If you can't provide room for making decisions on bigger ships - provide it for smaller ones, so that such ships will be viable on battlefield (e.g. avoid yet another obvious no-brainer 'web, targetpaint and volley it from titans, loot the wreck').

MisterAl tt1 wrote:
As such it looks like PVE use of capitals was actually taken into consideration when CCP created such mechanic.
To me it much more looks that additional spawns show that CCP intended to make it more difficult to farm with capital ships use. Looking at 1) dread farm, 2) capital spawns considered as a 'must' for best efficiency and 3) your post (where you state that corps are ought to go into lower-level while keeping ship costs at high level), it's obvious that real situation is just opposite.

If i were CCP, i'd replace each additional spawn with sleeper dreadnought/carrier - huge tank firepower/rr capability and bs-level loot and salvage. Not worth to kill it unless you want to use e.g. carrier for remote reps.
Ciar Meara
PIE Inc.
Khimi Harar
#719 - 2012-04-11 11:18:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Ciar Meara
CCP Greyscale wrote:

The reason we don't really like this sort of thing is that pre-fight fitting decisions are supposed to be one of the fundamental decisions of EVE combat. Most MMOs let you change your weapons and armor more-or-less on the fly. We don't, and there are clear and long-standing design principles behind that. SMAs let you make that decision *closer* to the fight, but they're not there to let you change your fitting *in* the fight. Yes, we need more interesting decisions that players can make during combat, that's one of the fundamental problems with our combat model right now IMO, and yes, removing this option will take some interesting decisions out of combat, and that makes us sad


Thats, in one word, stupid

Refitting in large fleetfights is one of the most interesting mechanics that has been developed by the player. As you claim you allready limit the choices of what can be done as is, do not limit this. Its stupid

I hate the idea that even though you can have actionable intelligence during fleet ops you can't really do anything with that information. The fact that you can refit makes up for that and is a good thing that a prepared fleetcommander with good logistics and support can exploit. And when has war not been about logistics and support!

You don't have to decide for us that fitting during a fight is bad, just give us options to do stuff like that. Taking out choices out of a allready very limited array of options in combat relegates combat to point and click.

- [img]http://go-dl1.eve-files.com/media/corp/janus/ceosig.jpg[/img] [yellow]English only please. Zymurgist[/yellow]
5mok1ng gun
Moon Of The Pheonix
#720 - 2012-04-11 12:06:10 UTC
Ganthrithor wrote:

5mok1ng gun wrote:
Ganthrithor wrote:
5mok1ng gun wrote:

Remove Titan SMA's IMO they should not have one anyway and need supporting craft to refit off.


No SMA-equipped ship can refit itself, just saying.

The issue isn't whether or not the Titans have SMAs (they could always use SC or carrier SMAs if they didn't), it's how SMAs work.

E: also, good to know about the week-long holiday in Iceland! Lucky duders :3



Of this I am aware love you goons thinking this is my first rodeo.

Removing the Titan SMA's would reduce the number of ships able to be refitted in any large scale fight where they would be fielded and as stated befor IMO they should not have one.

Granted they could use other carriers / super carriers to refit off but at least the supporting role of the carrier / super carrier would be getting used.

Why should a group of Titans beable to just blap around refitting at will with no support ???

I stand by my previous post


Sorry for assuming, but to my credit there has been a series of obvious highsec-dwellers who've posted ITT about how unfair it is that Titans can refit themselves. v0v

Also to my credit: your argument is still silly. Seriously when are Titans fielded without 2-3 their quantity of supercarriers? Hint: driveby DDs of traveling caps. And that's it. In any fleet battle there are always going to be supercarriers with a titan blob. Probably regular carriers as well (people use them to feed supers cap after jumps).


To answer your question quite recently by Northern Coalition in MC6-5J 3 – 4 days ago (I'm using EVE kill information purely as an example ).
11 titans 8 super carriers and 1 carrier ( that show on EVE kill minus the logistical ships that obviously don’t show up unless they had offensive modules ).
So with current day game mechanics and the numbers above that would give the NC fleet an option to refit 200 ships instead of the change I suggested where they would only be able to refit up to 90 ( this is still adequate and means pilots need to coordinated with others both inside and outside the relevant entities for things such as refitting during large scale combat since I’m sure there was more than just Northern Coalition fighting on one side ).
It should be about the support and coordination that you bring to the fight that determines the ability of your refit options, Well formed fleets should be the key to combat.

The formula should be support + damage + coordination + ability = win
not
damage + no support + no coordination + more numbers than the other side = win

This is my own view of EVE and like others it may not be your view of EVE.