Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Why?

And why should titans not have to make any kind of fitting decisions regarding their guns?

because bigger should just be better duh

I wouldn't say abuse exactly, it was removed because it was massively powerful for what it required. It wasn't even particularly hard to do, you just had to click relatively fast. It pretty much removed fitting as a consideration on capitals, you just needed to have every fitting you thought you might need in your cargo and then you could refit on the fly to counter your enemy.

I can see the reasoning behind keeping it around but ultimately the decision CCP made was that mid-combat refitting was too powerful and should be restricted.

Also personally I'd contest the idea that this had anything to do with others not being willing to use it. If you're in a sub-cap fleet or something you can't really make use of it, so a capital with any kind of refitting buddy could easily refit while their opponent might be literally incapable of doing so unless they were another cap fleet.



First off, the Naglfar enjoyed a brief time as the absolute best dread in the game because it could carry HAWs with it and fully refit on the fly since it only had two turret slots. The ability to dynamically refit for HAWs is massively powerful already, the ability to not even have to refit would be ridiculous. Not to mention that six more turrets would be a massive increase to the ship's DPS.

Second, the game only supports 8 high slots on a player ship. Adding six more would be A. ridiculous, and B. completely unnecessary.

Third, any comparison to real life as an excuse to justify something like this is both pointless and ridiculous. Real life is not a game, real life is not balanced, real life ships have zero relation to Eve space ships.

Your main reasoning here seems to be that Titans are, somehow, not powerful enough for their cost and that the way to fix this is to let them easily and without any kind of tradeoff kill sub-caps and capitals at the same time. You have not only completely failed to provide any kind of justification for this, beyond "it's a huge expensive ship!" which is laughable, but you seem to have ignored quite a bit of CCP's own statements on the subject.

First off, cost is not a balance parameter. Treating it like one got us several successive iterations of horribly broken Titans that were quite rightly nerfed.

Second, free stuff with no trade-off needs a justification beyond "it's a huge ship, it should have more turrets!" Spinal Tap is not a model for game balance, adding more of something does not make a good change in and of itself.

That's not abuse, that's how it worked. It was removed because it removed the choice element of fitting a ship for affected ships. This was literally stated by CCP in this blog post.

What you're suggesting still removes the choice of which guns to fit, which was something CCP added explicitly to give capitals a choice to make about whether they wanted to shoot sub-caps or other capitals. Therefore it very obviously and explicitly runs afoul of the same problem outlined in that article.

Whether combat refitting was intended in the past or not is irrelevant. Fitting a ship is about choices and committing to those choices. That's what CCP has said and that clearly over rules and speculation about past intent from before this change was made.

"so you're saying there's a chance. Yes!"

But, no. Here's why: Cost. It's too expensive a change for CCP to make (for lots of obvious reasons and maybe some not obvious ones), and on top of that would be a bad change (you have given no argument for why the change would actually be desirable while several have said why it is not.) It's like paying someone to kick you in the nuts, and then paying them to give you a ride to the doctor to fix your ruptured nut after you realized how stupid the idea was to begin with. Your argument isn't "because it is a ship I want to use but don't because of these limitations" or "because I fly a titan and adding in flexibility would fix a problem with the ship." Your argument is "durrrr."

That is a terrible argument. You have turret options, you can fit HAWs or you can fit Cap guns, being forced to fit both isn't "having options" it's taking them away and buffing the ship. Options indicate a decision is being made, you're not adding a decision you're removing one.

Also no, my argument isn't that "this is what CCP has done and that's final" I was simply blowing away your tissue paper thin argument that relying on an outdated citation of intent by CCP. Your citation is outdated and invalid and you've provided no other compelling evidence or argument for this change beyond "it's expensive, it should have more guns!" which CCP have also roundly dismissed, cost is not a balance parameter. If you feel the ship is too expensive for what it offers then don't use one.

If you want there to be a greater than 0 chance of CCP considering your suggestions then I highly recommend forming your arguments better in the future.

No, I'm saying your argument in favor of your own suggestion is terrible and unconvincing.

If you want something changed, whether that's in this game or at your job at work, you need to be able to present a clear and logical case for the change to be made. "I think it should be this way" is not an argument, logical or otherwise, and that's all you've presented here.

You say that Titan's are expensive so they should be stronger, have more guns, whatever, but you've presented nothing to back this up, it really is just your opinion.

You also seem to have missed something key here, I'm not disagreeing with you I'm poking holes in your argument. Small but subtle distinction there.

Also Occam's Razor is the postulate that the answer which makes the fewest assumptions is the most likely to be correct. It has absolutely nothing to do with the length of your argument and everything to do with how well you support it with facts, something you haven't done at all here.

So no, this is not a difference of opinion, this is me sitting here poking holes in your poor argument in favor of the change you want. If you can't support your change with a well reasoned argument in favor of it then it's probably a bad change.

But the nerfing of in-combat refitting was to force you to make choice so giving you an option to fit 12 guns with a switch to decide which pack of 6 is active goes against the point they had by changing combat refit. You are supposed to have the possibility of sometime being "stuck" with the wrong guns fitted. The only way I wold see it happeneign is if they switch had the same requirement to be used and only really provided a QoL benefit in having the guns pre-fitted. You would have to deal with any timer that prevent re-fitting for example.

here is my explanation in the format you were looking for:
Titans got nerfed, which was good. But now they are over-nerfed and kind useless, they are basically a glorified dread.
More flexibility = more people will use them in combat = more of them will be used and die.

For example, supercarriers were nerfed, but nowhere near as bad. They can still be used to kill subcaps as well as supercaps without any refitting.

Also I am not proposing 12 guns, I am proposing 12 slots. Only 6 can be activated at a time.