These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at

Ships & Modules

  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
123Next pageLast page

Incoming titan adjustments

First post First post
CCP Greyscale
C C P Alliance
#1 - 2012-03-13 11:46:45 UTC  |  Edited by: CCP Phantom
Hi everyone,

We're not happy with the effectiveness of large groups of titans against subcapital ships, so we're making some adjustments to titans and to XL turrets.

This is a quick, surgical adjustment to solve a specific issue we have identified. It's not a general titan balance pass, and we don't consider titans "done" after this change. Titans will require significant further changes, and probably an overall adjustment in role, before they're in a place where we're really happy with them. This will require a reasonably significant amount of work, which we unfortunately don't have the spare resources for right now. In a similar vein, we're not making more extensive balance changes (or addressing this issue in a more technically complex way) because we're allocating the minimum resources needed to resolve the specific issue (titans performing excessively well against subcaps in certain circumstances) satisfactorily. If you have any further questions about this paragraph, please ask away Smile

For the immediate future and until such time as we have the resources available to do a comprehensive overhaul, we want to ensure that titans perform decently against other capitals, but do not represent a serious threat to subcaps. We want titans to have clear vulnerabilities, and as much as possible to have them acting in support of the main capital/subcap fleet rather than the other way round. We've already prevented doomsdays from being fired at subcaps, and this adjustment should continue that trend.

We have talked to the CSM about this, and we're comfortable going forward with these changes in light of that discussion. I'm not going to put words in their mouths, though.

Specific changes being made:

XL turret tracking halved, siege module tracking penalty removed

This should generally make titan performance against small targets significantly worse, without seriously impacting their effectiveness against larger targets, or negatively impacting dreadnaughts in their common use-case (ie, in siege mode).

Titans reduced to 3 maximum locked targets, and base scan resolution reduced to 5

This should make trying to engage smaller targets very inefficient, due to long lock-times and an inability to queue many targets at once. This reinforces the titan's MO as a slow-acting but hard-hitting platform (in line with the doomsday's huge damage and 10 minute RoF). The scan res number is balanced around multiple Cormack's sensor boosters, on the assumption that money is not a limiting factor for titan pilots, and therefore that people will shell out for officer SBs if that lets them continue do this kind of thing. Our understanding is that this isn't standard practice right now, but we have to balance for expected behavior after the change, and for worst-case scenarios.

Expected release schedule for these changes

These changes should hit TQ some time in April. If there is a sizable release in April then expect them to turn up then; if not then we'll announce deployment dates for these changes closer to the time.

Changes considered and discarded:

(I'm expecting at least three people to not read the word "discarded" and make angry posts about something in this section. C'est la vie.)

Titans can't lock subcaps at all

Guaranteed effective solution, but we considered it too hacky and restrictive.

Adding a "minimum sig radius" attribute to turrets, below which damage would fall off regardless of tracking

Too big a change and more technical work than we actually needed to solve the problem.

Changing the lock time formula

As it is, the lock time formula doesn't really scale in a nice way between battleships and capitals (the kink in the curve always happens around cruisers regardless of the scan res and sig radius), but again we decided we could solve the issue without resorting to this sort of technical work.

Changing XL missiles to match

While in a strictly regimented world we ought in principle to nerf XL missiles and remove the penalties from the siege module for them too, in practice they're not actually a problem due to the way missile damage scales against small targets. Leaving them unchanged also serves to differentiate missiles further from turrets, which might make them more useful on capitals under certain circumstances.
Goonswarm Federation
#2 - 2012-03-13 11:47:57 UTC
Loving this.

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar

esc shk
Okay Sax
#3 - 2012-03-13 11:51:39 UTC
Ground Floor. incoming Shitstorm
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#4 - 2012-03-13 11:52:13 UTC
I predict tears. Twisted
Darker Domain
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#5 - 2012-03-13 11:54:20 UTC
Santa has arrived.

I wonder which three alliances will oppose this terrible, terrible balance.
Simvastatin Montelukast
DUST Expeditionary Team
Good Sax
#6 - 2012-03-13 11:56:28 UTC
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#7 - 2012-03-13 11:57:08 UTC
Cool stuff.
esc shk wrote:
Ground Floor. incoming Shitstorm

School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#8 - 2012-03-13 11:57:19 UTC
uh oh Attention
Tenth Plague of Egypt
#9 - 2012-03-13 11:58:17 UTC
So goons fly blobs of 2 LSE perma MWDing drakes(read massive sig, in fact as big as a carrier) against titans for 2 months to make them look OP, then titans get nerfed.

Good job goons/mittens now you should have the upper hand against a foe who you greatly outnumber....

Regards, Mike712 The BattleClinic Team

The Scope
Gallente Federation
#10 - 2012-03-13 11:58:51 UTC
CCP Greyscale for President.
hfo df
Ramm's RDI
Tactical Narcotics Team
#11 - 2012-03-13 11:59:37 UTC
Hoover Inc.
#12 - 2012-03-13 11:59:55 UTC
scanres to 5, maybe 10-15. it will take like 5 min to lock a pos
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#13 - 2012-03-13 11:59:59 UTC
Thanks CCP. Now The Mittani will be insufferably smug as **** for the next two months.

I work for a wizard.
Anela Cistine
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#14 - 2012-03-13 12:01:07 UTC
Good job CCP!
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#15 - 2012-03-13 12:01:16 UTC
very nice
Goonswarm Federation Human Resources
#16 - 2012-03-13 12:01:21 UTC
To declare your support for this please vote:
shas Ellecon
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#17 - 2012-03-13 12:01:26 UTC
I'm not sure the servers can withstand this much smug.
Caldari State
#18 - 2012-03-13 12:01:36 UTC
This is a sad, sad day for elite pvp. If I spent years earning a titan by logging on every month and changing a few skills on an alt and then exploiting drone minerals in order to pay for it, I should be able to kill any other ship in the game with impunity, from capsules to motherships. This is a totally unwarranted and ridiculous change. I'm sad to see that CCP is now catering to casuals.

We pay for our rent by exploiting broken game mechanics to bathe in isk and RMT, and this is how you treat us? I'm sickened CCP, sickened. Titans are endgame earners for some of us and we need to be able to dominate the game single-handedly to feel good about ourselves. You're hurting your most loyal customers here in favour of pubbie casuals.
Nomad I
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#19 - 2012-03-13 12:01:40 UTC
Tears and grief !
Red Templar
Amarr Empire
#20 - 2012-03-13 12:01:50 UTC

[b]For Love. For Peace. For Honor.

For None of the Above.

For Pony![/b]

123Next pageLast page